The Enduring Mystery of Jack the Ripper

At the end of the 19th century, the city of London was the largest in the world. A sprawling metropolis and a melting pot of commerce, finance and people. But in the fall of 1888, a horrible story emerged in the capital's East End. Such a horrible story that shocked everyone. One after another, the destitute women of the East End fell victim to a cruel murderer known as Jack the Ripper. Despite an extensive manhunt and some close encounters, the Ripper was never captured. Instead, the murders came to an abrupt end and left behind one of the greatest mysteries in the annals of crime.

In the East End of London there is a district known as Whitechapel. In the late 19th century, Whitechapel was known for its overcrowded slums, where many of the capital's poor and unemployed had taken refuge. Day and night, an army of police constantly patrolled this labyrinthine network of dimly lit streets, courthouses, and alleys. One of those places was a narrow passage known as George Yard. Near the northern entrance to this passage was a residential complex known as George Yard Buildings. It was the morning of August 7, 1888, when an upstairs tenant named John Reeves went out to work. Upon reaching the first floor landing, Reeves found the body of a woman lying face up in a pool of blood.

Horrified by the sight, he fell to the street looking for help. Officer Thomas Barrett was the first officer to arrive at the scene. He was soon joined by Dr. Timothy Killeen, who performed a brief examination. The woman had been stabbed 39 times. Mainly on her chest and abdomen. Dr. Killeen estimated that she had been dead for "about three hours." Thus placing the time of her death at approximately 02:30 in the morning. The woman had probably been attacked at the location where she was found, as no blood was found beyond the stair landing. But this was strange since none of the tenants of this crowded building had heard a single cry for help or any disturbance of any kind.

One exception was Amy Hewitt, a tenant who claimed to have heard a lone scream of "Murder!" But this was early in the afternoon of August 6 and the scream had emanated from outside the complex. Hewitt further explained: "The district surrounding this place is quite dangerous, and cries of murder are frequent, if not nightly." The victim was eventually identified as 39-year-old Martha Tabram. Tabram was a mother of two children and had separated from her husband many years before. Her last known address was 19 George Street, a communal boarding house less than 300 meters from the scene of her death. Tabram had made a living through prostitution and one of her partners was a woman named Mary Ann Connelly.

Connelly testified that, on the night of August 6, she and Tabram were out drinking with two soldiers. Then, shortly before midnight, the group of four had separated. Connelly led her client to Angel Alley while Tabram guided his to neighboring George Yard. It was the last time she saw Tabram alive. Barely two hours later, Constable Barrett had spoken to a soldier loitering near the north entrance to George Yard. The soldier had told Barrett that he was "waiting for his partner who had gone off with a girl." Half an hour later, Tabram is presumed dead. Both Connelly and Barrett were called to identify the soldiers.

But all the accused could provide an alibi. One had been at home with his wife, another at a military base, and another in a completely different part of town. This was enough for Inspector Edmund Reid, the lead investigator on the case, to abandon this line of investigation. "And having both chosen the wrong men, they could not be trusted again because their evidence would be useless." Even if a soldier had been responsible, no one could deduce the motive. The people of Whitechapel may have been used to crime and violence, but the sheer brutality of this attack was as terrifying as it was confusing. "The crime is one of the most brutal that has occurred in some years." "That a poor defenseless woman is violated and stabbed in an almost unbelievable way." These were the final observations delivered at the final inquest held on August 23.

Just a week later, things would go from bad to worse. On the morning of August 31, a man named Robert Paul left his home on Foster Street and headed to work. After turning right onto Buck's Row, he saw a man standing in the road. The man turned to him and said, "Come and look over here. There's a woman lying on the sidewalk." The stranger's name was Charles Cross and he was also on his way to work when he first saw the woman. The two men now approached cautiously. The woman's hands were cold to the touch and Cross believed she was dead.

Paul, however, thought he could feel faint breathing. But instead of seeking immediate help, Cross and Paul were more concerned about being late for work. As such, they quickly resumed their morning commute, hoping to notify a police officer along the way. Fortunately, Agent John Neil was just around the corner. Niel was equipped with a flashlight and found the woman lying on her back with a deep cut on her throat. The wound was still bleeding and parts of her body were still warm. She was soon joined by Agent John Thain, who was immediately sent to find a nearby doctor.

Upon her arrival, shortly after four, Dr. Rees Llewellyn estimated that she: "She had not been dead more than half an hour." In other words, Cross and Paul had probably found the woman just minutes after she was killed. In addition, a few minutes before three agents had patrolled the area. Constable Niel had last inspected Buck's Row at approximately 03:15. So had Sergeant Henry Kirby. While Agent Thain had simply passed the end of the street. None of which he had seen or heard anything bad. After the body was transferred to the morgue, a shocking discovery was made. In addition to two incisions on her throat, the woman was also "gutted." No organs had been removed, but Dr.

Llewellyn found: "several incisions running through her abdomen." He also believed that the killer possessed: "some rough anatomical knowledge, for he seemed to have attacked all the vital parts." The victim was quickly identified. Her name was Mary Ann Nichols and she had turned 43 just five days before the murder. Nichols had at least six children and her last known address was a common lodging house at 56 Flower & Dean Street. On the night of her death, Nichols had been turned away from a lodging house on Thrawl Street because she did not have the funds to pay for a bed. Looking to raise money through prostitution, Nichols ventured down Osborn Street before meeting her friend Ellen Holland.

The two had a brief exchange, but Nichols was visibly drunk. When they separated around two-thirty, Holland saw Nichols staggering east along Whitechapel Road. Just an hour later, she was found dead. Aside from her own body, the killer had left nothing in her path. There is no trace of blood, no murder weapon, no witnesses. Inspector Joseph Helson, lead investigator on the case, stated that "not one atom of evidence can be obtained to connect any person to the crime." Although the Nichols case came to a screeching halt, its similarities to the Martha Tabram case did not go unnoticed.

In both cases, the attack had been unnecessarily ferocious and there was no discernible motive. Both victims were prostitutes of approximately the same age and moved in the same circles. The only significant difference was their injuries. Tabram had been stabbed repeatedly, while Nichols had suffered multiple cuts. Differences aside, the prevailing assumption was that the same deranged individual had committed both murders. A conviction that would only strengthen in the following days. As the sun rose on September 8, a man named John Richardson was heading to work. At a quarter to five, he made a quick stop at 29 Hanbury Street.

He walked through the entrance and out the back door down a narrow hallway. Richardson then sat on the steps of the backyard before grabbing a knife... ...to cut a pesky piece of leather off of his boot. Once satisfied, he left the building and closed the front door behind him. About an hour later, a third-floor tenant at the same address, John Davis, came down the stairs and into the hallway. The front door was now wide open, but the back door was closed. When Davis went to open it, he found the bloody remains of a woman lying face up just below the steps.

Inspector Joseph Chandler was the first officer to arrive at the scene. After a brief inspection, he immediately sent for a doctor. Dr. George Phillips arrived at six-thirty and found the woman "terribly mutilated." Her throat had been "deeply cut", while her abdomen had been "completely opened". Her intestines had been: "taken out of the body and placed next to the shoulder of the corpse." Her body was then taken to the mortuary while Inspector Chandler and Dr Phillips carried out a sweep of the backyard. Most of what they found belonged to the building's tenants. But just below the place where the woman's feet rested, they found a small piece of cloth and two combs.

The objects probably belonged to the victim, but it appeared to Dr. Phillips that the killer had deliberately placed and arranged them. The autopsy revealed that two brass rings had been forcefully removed from the victim's left hand. These rings were nowhere to be found. Parts of the victim's abdomen were also missing, including her uterus. Dr. Phillips believed that: "the manner in which these portions were removed demonstrated some anatomical knowledge." This point was greatly expanded in subsequent research. "The injuries had been performed by someone who had considerable anatomical skills and knowledge." "There were no meaningless cuts." "For example, no simple animal slaughterhouse could have carried out these operations." "It must have been someone used to the autopsy room." The victim was quickly identified as Annie Chapman.

Chapman's date of birth is a bit uncertain, but she was approximately 47 years old at the time of her death. She had at least seven children, but, tragically, only two survived her. Her last known address was a boarding house at 35 Dorset Street. On the night of her death, Chapman was denied accommodation because she did not have the funds to pay for a bed. She was escorted out of her place by the night watchman, who then watched her disappear into a nearby alley. No one knows what happened to Chapman in the following hours. Her whereabouts during this time are a complete

mystery

.

But unlike the previous two cases, a witness in the Chapman case could have caught a glimpse of the killer. At five-thirty on the morning of September 8, a woman named Elizabeth Long saw a man and a woman chatting outside 29 Hanbury Street. Long was sure that the woman she had seen was Annie Chapman. But the man had his back to Long, so she never saw her face. Long, however, managed to hear a fragment of her conversation. The man had posed the question: "Will you do it?" To which the woman responded: "Yes." Now, a lasting point of contention in the Chapman case is the timing of her death.

According to Dr. Phillips, when she arrived at 06:30, Chapman had been dead: "at least two hours." That would put her death at around four-thirty. But according to Long, she saw Chapman alive an hour later. Then there is the testimony of John Richardson. Richardson was the son of one of the building's tenants. At a quarter to five he made a routine check on the basement door, which had previously been burglarized. When he found it safe, he sat on the steps of the backyard to cut a piece of leather from his boot. Although he was sitting just inches from the scene of the murder, Richardson did not see any body.

He stood firm on this point. "I couldn't have missed the deceased if she had been there." Further complicating the timeline is the testimony of Albert Cadosch. At approximately twenty minutes past five, Cadosch had crossed the backyard of 27 Hanbury Street when he heard voices coming from nearby. However, they were barely audible and Cadosch had only made out the word "No!" A few minutes later, he heard something crash against the wooden fence that divided the two yards. There is no single way to untangle this web of contradictions, but Dr. Phillips admitted the possibility of having miscalculated. That "the cold of the morning and the great loss of blood" had skewed his opinion, which was based largely on body heat.

So, assuming that Dr. Phillips miscalculated and that Long and Cadosch's memories were off by a few minutes, that would place Chapman's death at around 05:30 in the morning. At that time, the dim light of dawn would have given the tenants of 29 Hanbury Street an unobstructed view of the murder site. Some of whom had even slept with the windows open. Despite this, the killer managed to evade detection and evenHe took time to organize the victim's belongings. As the number of victims gradually increased, the public became increasingly anxious. They were not only frightened by the murders but also frustrated with the police and their perceived incompetence.

Even across the pond, the police's efforts were harshly criticized. "The police and detective force in London are probably the stupidest in the world." What these mocking quotes and illustrations failed to capture is where the overwhelming odds were in favor of the perpetrator. Police confronted someone who apparently hit them for no reason. Someone who left no murder weapon and few witnesses. On top of that, the East End was very overcrowded and the police were understaffed. As one newspaper said: "A man in the East End of London is a molehill." "So invisible and almost so impossible to identify among the masses." At no time was this more evident than during the events of September 30.

On September 29, a routine Saturday meeting was held at a socialist club on Berner Street. When the meeting came to an end around midnight, all but a few members returned home. Those who stayed proceeded to drink and socialize. Half an hour after September 30, Joseph Lave stepped outside to get some fresh air. Lave used the side entrance leading to Dutfield's Yard and stayed for about ten minutes. Moments after Lave re-entered, Morris Eagle entered the building through the same entrance. He was also a member of the club and had just returned after escorting a woman to his house. Neither of them noticed anything unusual.

Twenty minutes later a horse-drawn carriage was heard passing by on Bernerstraße. The driver was Louis Diemschutz, the clubhouse butler. As Diemschutz entered Dutfield's Yard, his pony veered sharply to the left. When he looked to his right, he thought he could discern something in the darkness. Diemschutz came down from his grave and, after lighting a match, he could see a woman lying on her side against the wall. Not even knowing if she was "drunk or dead," Diemschutz ran into the club to check on his wife. When he found her safe and sound, he alerted the other members and soon a small crowd gathered outside her.

They could now see that the woman's throat had been "horrifically slit." And that "a stream of blood dripped across the courtyard." Eagle, Diemschutz and a few others quickly dispersed to find a police officer. As a growing crowd of bystanders waited for authorities to arrive, there was no sign of the perpetrator. But on the other side of town, less than a kilometer to the west, an even more macabre discovery was about to be made. At one thirty that same morning, Officer Edward Watkins was patrolling an open space known as Miter Square. Watkins' route would take him through the square about once every 13 minutes, and on this occasion, it was deserted.

But in the time it took Watkins to complete another rotation, Miter Square became a crime scene. "The next time I came in was at 01:44." "Turn right". "I saw the body of a woman lying face up." "I saw that her throat was cut and her intestines were sticking out." "Her stomach was destroyed." "She was lying in a pool of blood." Dr. George Sequeira and Dr. Frederick Brown soon arrived on the scene. They found horrific injuries inflicted on the woman's face, throat and abdomen. Her intestines had been "largely removed and placed over her right shoulder." Among the many lacerations to her face, Dr.

Brown noted that: "the lobe and auricle of her right ear were cut obliquely." According to her expert opinions along with Watkins' testimony, the woman had died just minutes after her body was found. Back on Berner Street, Dr. Frederick Blackwell and Dr. George Phillips had come to the same conclusion. The woman in Dutfield's Yard had died just minutes after her body was found. But, unlike previous victims, she had only suffered injuries to her throat. There were no abdominal mutilations or anything that could connect the attack to the others. But the murder in Dutfield's Yard and the one in Miter Square were separated by less than 1 kilometer and about 45 minutes.

This allowed for a chilling possibility. It was suspected then, as it is still suspected today, that, when Diemschutz came noisily through the door, he unknowingly interrupted the murder. The killer may even have been trapped inside Dutfield's Yard because the Berner Street gate was the only entry point. Perhaps they saw an opportunity to escape when Diemschutz ran into the club. From there, it would have taken them less than 15 minutes to reach Plaza Miter. Plenty of time to look for another victim. But it must be stressed that this is pure speculation. There is no evidence to suggest the two murders were even related.

The woman at Dutfield's Yard was identified as 44-year-old Elizabeth Stride. Stride was a Swedish immigrant who had lived in London for more than two decades. After the death of her husband, she earned a living through prostitution. Her last known address was a common lodging house at 32 Flower & Dean Street. On the night of her death, Stride had been seen by numerous witnesses. First, she was seen in the company of a "respectably dressed man" around eleven o'clock. Around quarter to midnight, Stride was seen talking to a man who was "decently dressed" and had the appearance of an employee.

Then, just minutes before the murder, Stride was seen in the company of a man by Officer William Smith. The man was carrying a small package wrapped in newspaper and had a "respectable appearance." It is unclear if these descriptions are from the same person or if Stride approached multiple customers as the night progressed. There were other witnesses, some less credible than others, but the one who really stood out from the rest was Israel Schwartz. Around a quarter to one, Schwartz was walking down Berner Street. When he arrived at Dutfield's Yard, he saw a man throw a woman to the ground in front of the entrance.

The woman had "screamed three times but not very loudly." Schwartz would later identify this woman as Elizabeth Stride. Schwartz did not attempt to intervene, but simply chose to cross the street. It was then that he saw a second man on the opposite side who was lighting a pipe. The man who attacked the woman appeared to address this second man shouting the name "Lipski!" The pipe smoker followed Schwartz before finally parting ways. Taken at face value, this story seems to suggest that the killer had an accomplice. An accomplice named Lipski. In fact, this was the interpretation of some government officials.

But Inspector Frederick Abberline, one of the lead investigators in the case, had a very different interpretation. You see, the name Lipski had gained notoriety in 1887 when a Jewish man named Isreal Lipski was convicted of murder. Due to the publicity of that case, the surname Lipski had become an anti-Semitic insult. Abberline therefore deduced that the man who shouted "Lipski!" was directing an insult at Schwartz, who was described as being of "strong Jewish appearance." Meanwhile, the pipe man may have been an innocent bystander who got scared along with Schwartz. It is doubtful that we will ever really know if Abberline's interpretation is correct.

However, Schwartz's account is convincing, as he possibly witnessed the moment Elizabeth Stride was attacked. Back at Plaza Miter, a large crowd of spectators had descended on the scene. All driven by her morbid curiosity to glimpse her body. The autopsy revealed that the killer had removed some organs, including the uterus and left kidney. According to Dr. Brown, this extraction required "a lot of knowledge," which he compared to that of a butcher. On the contrary, Dr. Sequeira found no signs of "great anatomical skill." The woman in Plaza Miter was identified as Catherine Eddowes, 46 years old. Eddowes had at least five children but, after escaping her abusive husband, she had become estranged from her family.

Her last known address was a common lodging house at 55 Flower & Dean Street. The night of her death, Eddowes had gone out drinking. She became so drunk that, around eight-thirty, she was found lying on the pavement in Aldgate High Street surrounded by a crowd. The commotion attracted some officers, who then escorted Eddowes to a nearby police station. There she remained locked in a cell until one in the morning. After his release from prison, Eddowes was probably seen in the company of a man in the vicinity of Miter Square. Only one of the three witnesses, Joseph Lawende, had paid much attention to the couple.

The man looked like a sailor and wore a "reddish scarf" around his neck. Although Lawende identified the woman as Catherine Eddowes, he never saw her face. However, this sighting was only made about 10 minutes before Officer Wakins discovered Eddowes' body. What is incredibly tragic about the Eddowes case is how little the killer escaped justice. First, the only private residence in Plaza Miter was occupied by a police officer and his family. They had slept right next to an upstairs window that overlooked the murder site. Second, a night watchman and a retired police officer were cleaning a warehouse near the murder site.

He routinely heard the footsteps of patrolling officers, but heard nothing at the time of the murder. Finally, Constable James Harvey had taken a look at Miter Square at approximately twenty to two. That's right between Lawende's sighting and the discovery of the body. Harvey should have had an unobstructed view of the murder scene, but he didn't notice anything suspicious. Was it too dark? Was the killer just a few meters away, shrouded in shadows? Did one or more witnesses get the time wrong? While the killer eventually escaped, he did not do so without a trace. Shortly before three o'clock, a blood-stained piece of cloth was found near the entrance of a building a few blocks northeast.

It turned out to be a torn part of the apron Eddowes was wearing. The killer had evidently torn off the patch and then discarded it as he escaped. Now, on the wall above this piece of apron, someone had written a message. "Jews are men who will not be blamed for anything." To this day, both the meaning and the author of this message remain in doubt. Was it written by the murderer? Was it an attempt to raise suspicions about or even alienate the Jewish community? Was it not related to the murder? Some letters would soon raise similar questions.

Letters that had supposedly been written and published by the murderer. Three days before the murders of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes, London's Central News Agency received a letter in the mail. The perpetrator claimed responsibility for the recent murders and was planning the "next job." Then, after the two murders, the same agency received a blood-stained postcard. It contained details about the atrocities, which the author described as a "double event." In case the letters were genuine, the police decided to make them public. The hope was that someone would recognize the writing. Unfortunately, no one ever did. Rather, it served simply to announce the name with which the letters had been signed.

Opinions about the authenticity of the letter were divided then and remain divided today. In particular, the Dear Boss Letter had promised to "cut off the lady's ears" and send them to the police. Police never received such a package and neither victim had their ears removed. But you may remember that Eddowes's right earlobe had been "cut obliquely." Was this a failed attempt by the killer to fulfill his promise? Or was it simply one of numerous lacerations unconnected to the letter? Despite the content of the letters, modern linguistic analysis suggests that they were written by the same hand.

So hoaxes or not, the perpetrators were probably the same. However, the lyrics "didn't look at all like" the message written on the torn apron patch. Now, the publication of the letters inspired a flood of imitators. Agencies across London were soon inundated with correspondence imitating the other two. But at least one of them could have been genuine. Not because of the content of the letter but because of the content of a box with which it was delivered. On October 16, a man named George Lusk received a small package in the mail. Lusk was the chairman of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee.

A small group of local merchants who tried to identify the murderer. The package consisted of a letter and a cardboard box containing half a kidney. All the doctors who examined the kidney agreed that it was human. But it could not be determined if it was the same left kidney removed from Eddowes' body. It could, for example, have been an elaborate hoax by a medical student or someone with access to human organs. The author of the attached letter, for his part, insists that the kidney did belong tothe victim and that the other half had been fried and eaten.

A popular theory at the time, and still popular today, was that some of the letters had been fabricated by the press. According to Chief Inspector John Littlechild, the letters were "clever journalistic work". Deputy Commissioner Robert Anderson dismissed the letters as: "the creation of an enterprising London journalist". Meanwhile, Chief Constable Melville Macnaghten thought he could see the journalist's "stained index finger." There are a few candidates as to who this journalist could have been, but there is no solid evidence against any of them. Whether a hoax by an enterprising journalist or the genuine prose of the Ripper, the letters received widespread attention.

They took up space in virtually every newspaper and dominated much of the public discourse throughout October. A month that passed without a single atrocity involving Jack the Ripper. Maybe it's finally over? "It's pretty sure the monster was scared." "And he has put the horrible job on hold for the time being, if not forever." On the morning of November 9, a merchant and owner named John McCarthy was reviewing his accounting. McCarthy was the landlord of Miller's Court and the tenants of room 13 had fallen behind on their rent. McCarthy immediately sent for his assistant, Thomas Bowyer, to collect the money at a quarter to eleven.

After knocking twice with no response, Bowyer turned the corner to look out a window. But his view was obstructed by a coat or curtain, so Bowyer had to reach through broken glass to push him aside. It was then that he saw the severely mutilated body of a woman lying on a bed in the corner of the room. Miller's courtroom was soon filled with police. But the door to room 13 was locked and had to be forced open with a pickaxe. What they found inside was truly the stuff of nightmares. "I can't erase what we saw from my mind." "It seemed more like the work of a devil than a man." "The whole scene is more than I can describe." "I hope I never see anything like that again." Dr.

George Phillips described the body as "cut into pieces." Dr. Thomas Bond described the woman's face as "hacked beyond recognition." Her abdomen had been "emptied of her viscera," while her throat had been: "cut completely to the bone." The body had been monstrously disfigured with loose organs scattered around it. The room itself was sparsely furnished and offered few clues. Two tables, one or two chairs and a small piece of furniture. Among the ashes of a fireplace, the police found pieces of burned clothing. Had the killer tried to get rid of the evidence or had he simply used it for heat and light?

The victim was identified almost immediately. Her name was Mary Jane Kelly and she was the tenant of 13 Miller's Court. But almost everything about Kelly's life is shrouded in

mystery

. She was probably of Welsh or Irish descent and she was in her twenties, making her by far the youngest victim. But since no matching records have been found for Mary Jane Kelly, it is likely that she was using a false identity. In any case, Ella Kelly did not live alone. Until a few days before the murder, she had lived with a man named Joseph Barnett. They only separated on October 30 because Barnett disapproved of Kelly's prostitution and the people she associated with.

But they did see each other again. On the night of November 8, Barnett visited Kelly. Upon his arrival, he found Kelly in the company of a woman who was about to leave. Unfortunately, there are conflicting accounts about who this woman was, when Barnett arrived, and how long she stayed. If we choose to believe Barnett, she arrived sometime between seven and a quarter to eight and left before nine. Shortly before midnight, Kelly was seen in the company of a man by her neighbor Mary Ann Cox. When Cox walked past the couple, they were about to enter Kelly's room.

Cox said goodnight to Kelly, but she was "very drunk" and could barely respond. Once they entered, Cox could hear Kelly singing. When Cox left the court about an hour later, Kelly could still be heard singing. At two o'clock, Kelly had apparently ventured out again, because she was discovered by a man named George Hutchinson. The two were supposed to know each other well and Kelly had asked him if she could give him some coins. But Hutchinson was broke and Kelly was desperate for money, so they soon separated. Moments later, Hutchinson observed Kelly being approached by a well-dressed man.

The two had a seemingly jovial interaction and began walking north. Hutchinson found it suspicious that such a well-dressed man would seek the company of a woman like Kelly. As such, as the couple passed him, he examined the man's appearance. For example, he was carrying a pair of gloves in his right hand and a small package in his left. Hutchinson decided to follow the couple as they headed to Miller's Court. Before disappearing onto the court, the man handed Kelly a red scarf and she had allegedly told him: "She's okay, dear. Come, you'll be comfortable." Hutchinson remained in the area until three in the afternoon, but neither Kelly nor the man reappeared.

About the same time, Cox returned home. In stark contrast to the loud chanting of her last departure, Cox was now struck by the complete absence of sound and light in Kelly's room. Finally, at approximately four o'clock, a tenant upstairs and a woman in front of Kelly's room heard screams of "Murder!" The voice was that of a woman and seemed to emanate from nearby. Meanwhile, other residents of the court did not hear any screams. According to Dr. Bond, Kelly died between one and two in the morning. Dr. Phillips estimated the time of death a few hours later.

But some witnesses were quite insistent that they had seen or even spoken to Kelly until eight or ten in the morning. Please note that her body was discovered at a quarter to eleven. These contradictions are difficult to reconcile and the precise moment of death escapes us to this day. Mary Jane Kelly is often considered the Ripper's latest victim. Along with Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes, she is part of the canonical five. All five victims were likely murdered by the same hand. Martha Tabram could have been a victim of Jack the Ripper, but opinions are divided.

The same goes for at least a handful of other cases. Even the canonical five are not without controversy, so the total number of victims is a topic of debate. Assuming that Kelly was indeed the final victim, one might wonder why. Why did the murders end so suddenly? Did the Ripper give in to fear of being caught? Were they imprisoned for a different crime? Perhaps they succumbed to an illness or committed suicide? Could they have emigrated to another country? Perhaps they deliberately changed their modus operandi to confuse the police? The possibilities are practically endless, which means there is no shortage of suspects.

After the murder of Mary Ann Nichols, a rumor began to circulate that someone named Leather Apron had a habit of abusing prostitutes. The name quickly hit the press and soon became synonymous with the killer. In fact, Leather Apron was the predominant pseudonym before Jack the Ripper. But the man identified as Leather Apron was soon cleared of all suspicion. His real name was John Pizer and he was elsewhere in London the night Nichols was attacked. This misguided pursuit is emblematic of the entire investigation. Police pursued even the most tenuous leads due to lack of evidence and mounting public pressure.

They interviewed thousands, researched hundreds, and developed numerous theories along the way. In the words of Inspector Frederick Abberline: "Theories! We were almost lost in theories; there were so many of them." In an effort to narrow the search, police used a primitive form of criminal profiling. The idea was to analyze the available evidence to try to evaluate what type of person had committed the crimes. This profile was prepared by Dr. Thomas Bond, and described the Ripper as a strong middle-aged man with a harmless appearance who was dressed respectably. Bond's most controversial assessment was that the killer possessed "no scientific or anatomical knowledge." This was in direct opposition to the opinions of his peers.

Most of whom credited the Ripper with at least a basic knowledge of anatomy. According to witness accounts, the Ripper was a man of average height and medium to heavy build, in his late twenties to early thirties. He was wearing dark clothing, including some sort of hat, and had a mustache. But this type of aggregation or tabulation of accounts can be quite misleading. Many details are not only inconsistent, but could describe completely different people. As far as we know, none of the witnesses ever saw Jack the Ripper. There is so much up for debate that arguments can be made against almost any suspect.

Some have even considered the possibility that the Ripper was a woman or possibly a man disguised as a woman. While Jill or Jackie the Ripper is an interesting theory, it has not gained widespread support. What is rarely discussed is that the Ripper was a resident of or familiar with the East End. After all, he managed to narrowly evade capture on multiple occasions, which implies intimate knowledge of the roads and patrol routes. He probably had some type of employment since the murders were committed during weekends and holidays, and it is possible that he had some degree of anatomical knowledge.

With this unflinching profile in hand, let's take a closer look at some suspects. The question is, where do we start? According to criminal profiler and FBI special agent John Douglas, the Ripper was not only a local but was likely interviewed by police. If Douglas is right, the Ripper could be someone we already know. He is either a witness or a person close to one of the victims. What about John Richardson? The witness in the Chapman case who sat on the steps in the backyard to cut a piece of leather from his boot. In fact, the police suspected Richardson, but they found "not the slightest bit of evidence" against him.

His mother also lived on the premises, so she had good reasons to be there. What about George Hutchinson? The witness who followed Mary Jane Kelly after she was approached by a well-dressed customer. Hutchinson never clarified his motivation for following the couple. He simply stated that he was surprised to see such a well-dressed man in the company of a woman like Kelly. Was he surprised because he was worried? Was he jealous? Was it about money? After all, Hutchinson was bankrupt and the client seemed rich. He may have waited outside the courthouse with the intention of assaulting this well-dressed client.

There are a lot of question marks surrounding Hutchinson. He has never been positively identified, so almost nothing is known about his life. This makes it very difficult to build a strong case against him. Hutchinson was questioned by police but eventually convinced Inspector Frederick Abberline that he was telling the truth. But not all witnesses attracted as much attention from police. Take, for example, Charles Cross. The man who discovered Mary Ann Nichols' body. On the morning of August 31, Charles Cross left his home on Doveton Street and headed to work. As he turned toward Buck's Row, he came across the body of Mary Ann Nichols.

Moments later, he was joined by Robert Paul and events unfolded as described above. Despite his proximity to the crime, Cross appears to have escaped the suspicion of both the press and the police. He was evidently seen as the innocent bystander he appeared to be. But in recent years, that perception has been challenged. The argument is that Cross was in the act of committing the murder when he was interrupted by Paul's approaching footsteps. Cross then hid the murder weapon and presented himself as someone who had just found the body. The injuries inflicted on Nichols would amount to disruption as they were less severe than those of later victims.

The interesting thing about Cross is that he probably testified under a false name. He claimed to be employed as a carman and his address was 22 Doveton Street. But surviving records show that, in 1888, this address was occupied by a man named Charles Lechmere. Lechmere also worked as a carman and, on at least one occasion, was called Charles Cross, as it was the surname of his stepfather. It is now widely believed that Charles Lechmere was the man who appeared at the inquest and who assumed the name of his stepfather when he testified. His motivation for doing so has been the source of much speculation.

Was he trying to hide his identity or was it simply a force of habit? After all, it's not hard to find contemporary examples of people doing exactly the same thing. The most evidencecompelling case against Lechmere is that his morning commute from home to work roughly coincides with the time and location of the murders. Except for the murders of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes, who were murdered on a Sunday. The only day Lechmere would have been free from work. Not only that, but all the murders were committed during weekends and holidays. Why would a man who supposedly timed the murders with his morning commute gravitate toward rest days?

In any case, Lechmere's mother lived a few blocks south of Berner Street. The neighborhoods around which Lechmere spent his childhood were also. As such, it is speculated that Stride and Eddowes were murdered after Lechmere paid a late-night visit to his mother. While he claimed to be employed by a delivery company known as Pickfords, no records of his employment remain. If he worked for Pickfords, there is a good chance that he delivered meat and therefore would have been exposed to sacrifice and blood on a daily basis. Lechmere remained in east London until his death in 1920 at the age of 71.

While there is no evidence that the police ever suspected Lechmere, it is difficult to believe that they ignored him completely. Many case files have not survived, so any doubts investigators may have had may have long since disappeared. Now, one witness who definitely caught attention was Joseph Barnett. Joseph Barnett was the man who lived with Mary Jane Kelly until a few days before the murder. He and Kelly supposedly met around April 1887 and eventually moved into 13 Miller's Court. Barnett worked as a fish porter but, for unknown reasons, he lost his job between July and August 1888. From then on, the couple had difficulty paying the rent and Kelly returned to prostitution.

Now, those who believe Barnett was the Ripper see his loss of employment as a turning point. The argument is that Barnett was so overcome with guilt and anguish over turning Kelly back into prostitution that he went on a killing spree. Murdering one local prostitute after another in a desperate attempt to scare Kelly off the streets. While most of this is pure speculation, it is true that Barnett disapproved of Kelly's prostitution. You may remember that Barnett split from Kelly on October 30 because he didn't like the prostitutes she associated with. "She never went outside when she lived with me." "She would never have gone wrong again, and she should never have left, if it hadn't been for the prostitutes stopping the house." This could further explain why Kelly was the Ripper's final and most brutally mutilated victim.

The implication is that Barnett felt rejected by Kelly and wanted revenge for the breakup. According to Barnett, he visited Kelly on the night of November 8, but they parted "on friendly terms." He then allegedly went home and played a card game until half past twelve. Before going to bed, Kelly was presumed dead in the early hours of November 9, so Barnett could have returned to Miller's Court sometime after midnight. Although police subjected him to four hours of questioning, Barnett was eventually released. Then there's the matter of the closed door. When police arrived at Miller's Court, they had to force the door open with a pickaxe.

This raised an important question: How did the killer close the door? The key to room 13 had been missing for some time. Because of this, he and Kelly would: "open the door through the window." The door was said to be fitted with a "latch" and evidently latched itself when closed. If that's true, mystery solved. But, even if the door didn't close automatically, there's still an obvious solution. All the killer would have had to do is watch Kelly use the window trick and then use that same technique to close the door on his way out. But those who favor Barnett as the Ripper offer another solution.

The key never disappeared. Instead, Barnett is said to have stolen the key and then used it on the night of the murder. All of these solutions are equally valid and it is impossible to know which one is correct. There is a slight variation on this theory that states that Barnett murdered Kelly but was not the Ripper. Instead, he simply emulated the Ripper to divert attention from himself. Again, this is pure speculation, but Kelly's murder differed a little from the rest in that it was committed indoors. Barnett remained in the East End until his death in 1926 at the age of 68.

While it is natural for suspicion to fall on witnesses and acquaintances, Victorian detectives pursued other lines of inquiry. One prominent theory was that the Ripper suffered from insanity. And the prime suspect in that category is Aaron Kosminski. The investigation into the Whitechapel murders was overseen by numerous senior Metropolitan Police officers. One of them was Deputy Commissioner Robert Anderson. Following his retirement, Anderson repeatedly and unequivocally stated that Jack the Ripper had been identified. "There was no doubt about the identity of the criminal." Without revealing the name of this suspect, Anderson described him as a "lower-class Polish Jew" who was "safely caged in an asylum." He had been identified by a witness who was described as: "the only person who had ever had a good view of the killer." This anonymous witness had allegedly refused to testify because the suspect was "a fellow Jew." "I'm almost tempted to reveal the identity of the killer." "But there would be no public benefit from this measure." While Anderson never revealed the name of this suspect, his colleagues were a little more forthcoming.

Chief Inspector Donald Swanson revealed that his last name was Kosminski. Another senior officer, Melville Macnaghten, described Kosminski as a homicidal and misogynistic resident of Whitechapel. Surviving records show that Aaron Kosminski was admitted to a mental hospital in 1891. Aaron was in fact from Poland, was Jewish, and had lived in Whitechapel. He suffered from auditory hallucinations and paranoid fear of being fed by others. He trained as a barber but "hadn't tried any kind of work for years." It is unclear when his mental health began to deteriorate, but upon being institutionalized, Aaron was deemed harmless. He was "calm and well-behaved" and "apathetic as a rule." He only rarely became "excited and violent." However, prior to his confinement, Aaron had once threatened his sister with a knife.

The case against him depends largely on the claims made by Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten. Especially the claim that an anonymous witness identified a suspect named Kosminski. But the descriptions of that suspect do not entirely match those of Aaron Kosminski. For example, Macnaghten stated that the suspect had been: "transferred to an asylum about March 1889." Aaron was first confined in 1891. Swanson wrote that the suspect had been "sent away and died soon afterward." Aaron was still alive at the time and spent nearly three decades under psychiatric care. As such, it is possible that the Kosminski suspect was someone other than Aaron Kosminski.

It is also possible that these inconsistencies were mere lapses of memory. After all, these events were told years or even decades after the fact, and Macnaghten even confessed to having written solely from memory. Regardless of the suspect's true identity, Anderson were the only ones who seemed convinced of his guilt. Macnaghten ultimately favored a different suspect, stating that: "many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no evidence could be thrown on any of them." Inspector Edmund Reid was of the same opinion. "Now we have Sir Robert Anderson saying that Jack the Ripper was Jewish." "I challenge you to prove that." "I challenge anyone to prove that there was even the slightest bit of evidence against a man, woman or child..." So when Anderson wrote that "there was no doubt about the identity of the criminal," he simply expressed the personal opinion of he. .

In fact, there was much doubt and no consensus among the police. But in recent years, Aaron Kosminski has been resurrected as the prime suspect due to controversial DNA analysis. Okay, so back in 1888, Acting Sergeant Amos Simpson is said to have stolen a blood-stained shawl from the crime scene of Catherine Eddowes. This shawl was then passed down from generation to generation before undergoing DNA testing in 2011. DNA samples were extracted from the shawl and then compared to the maternal descendants of Eddowes and Kosminski. In both cases, it was a match. If subsequent press coverage is to be believed, the mystery is now "definitively solved." Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper.

But, as you can imagine, it is never that simple. First, the provenance or chain of custody of the shawl is severely lacking. There is no evidence that a shawl was found at the crime scene or that Simpson was ever at the crime scene. Furthermore, it is unlikely that a destitute woman like Eddowes would own such an expensive item. Second, the type of DNA used to identify Eddowes and Kosminski was mitochondrial DNA. This type of DNA is passed down through the female line and is not unique to any individual. Thousands of them may share the same mitochondrial DNA, meaning it cannot be used to identify a specific person.

In the words of one geneticist: "Based on mitochondrial DNA, only one suspect can be excluded." Therefore, to say that the mystery has been "definitively solved" is highly inaccurate. There is still much room for doubt. So, to summarize. An unknown witness identified a suspect named Kosminski. This was enough to convince at least one senior officer of his guilt. That suspect may have been Aaron Kosminski. A man who was largely non-violent but once threatened his sister with a knife. Aaron cannot be incriminated or eliminated by DNA evidence. He spent the rest of his life under psychiatric care and died in 1919 at the age of 53.

Kosminski was not the only suspect presented by a high-ranking officer. A completely different suspect who still falls into the same category is Francis Tumblety. Two days before Mary Jane Kelly's murder, an American doctor named Francis Tumblety was arrested in London. As you can probably see from this photograph, Tumblety was quite an eccentric character. He was born in Ireland around 1833 but raised in the United States. From an early age, Tumblety earned a reputation as a medicine man or medicine man. He engaged in all kinds of dubious medical practices and promoted himself as the "Indian herbal doctor." He promised to cure everything from dyspepsia and scurvy to cancer and blindness using only medicinal herbs.

When he wasn't posing as a doctor, Tumblety was busy running from the law. He was charged or convicted of crimes including robbery and assault, attempting to cause a miscarriage and involuntary manslaughter of a patient. He was even implicated in the assassination of American President Abraham Lincoln, but was eventually cleared of suspicion. Now, in the early 1860s, Tumblety is said to have hosted a lavish dinner in Washington. Only men were invited to this dinner, and Tumblety had supposedly expressed a fierce hatred towards women. Additionally, he displayed a cabinet in his office in which he kept a vast collection of jars filled with anatomical specimens.

Some of them were said to contain the wombs of "all kinds of women." In 1869, Tumblety ventured across the Atlantic and visited England for the first time. By his own admission, he wandered the streets of London until he became familiar with every part of it. He billed himself as "The Great American Doctor" and had some skirmishes with the police. After some more travels between the old and new worlds, Tumblety found himself in London in the fall of 1888. The purpose of his visit and his whereabouts at the time of the murders are completely unknown. Tumblety never remained in his position for long and frequently used false names.

There is a story of a mysterious tenant who left a blood-stained shirt near the scene of Elizabeth Stride's murder. This supposedly occurred on the night of the murder, and some believe this tenant was Francis Tumblety. But there is no firm evidence of this and the entire incident is riddled with uncertainty. What we do know is that Tumblety was arrested in London on November 7. According to the press and Tumblety himself, he was arrested on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper. Two days later, Mary Jane Kelly was found brutally murdered and it is unclear whether Tumblety was still in custody or had already been released on bail.

However, he was eventually charged with four counts of gross indecency, which had nothing to do with the murders. But Tumblety had no intention of being judged. Instead, he crossed the English Channel, boarded a steamship under an assumed name, and fled back to the United States. He was pursued by detectives and kept under surveillance, but his crimes "were not extraditable." As such, Tumblety remained in the United States and neverreturned to England. So, to summarize. Francis Tumblety was a misogynistic doctor who was in London at the time of the murders. He even showed off a collection of wombs, and the Ripper removed the wombs of two of his victims.

I mean, he seems like the perfect suspect. Perhaps too perfect... There is no doubt that Tumblety was in London in 1888, but the claim that he was a misogynistic collector of human body parts is extremely dubious. It can be traced back to a single article from December 1888 that features an interview with a man named Charles Dunham. Dunham had a long history of spreading misinformation and has been described as a pathological liar, a forger and a fraudster. He was even convicted of perjury. As such, there is every reason to believe that this story is a complete fabrication. Additionally, Tumblety was older and taller than the men described by most witnesses.

Tumblety was said to be "a huge man" who liked to dress in extravagant, militaristic costumes. It's hard to imagine a tall, pompous American prowling the streets of Whitechapel virtually undetected. On the other hand, it is not clear which of the witness accounts can be trusted, if any. Then there's the matter of the rings. You may remember that two brass rings were stolen from Annie Chapman's body. It is suspected that the Ripper took the rings to keep as trophies. Now, after his death in 1903, Tumblety left quite an impressive estate. But among his many valuable possessions was a pair of cheap imitation rings.

Could they have been the same rings removed from Chapman's body? It's possible. It is also impossible to prove. Chief Inspector John Littlechild considered Tumblety a "very likely" suspect, and it is not difficult to see why. If the numerous rumors about him are to be believed, Tumblety had both the opportunity and the motive to commit the murders. But therein lies the problem. Much of what we know about Tumblety is based on unsubstantiated rumors. Tumblety himself was an attention-seeking charlatan who had no qualms about lying and deceiving. With a suspect like that, he can never be sure where the lies end and the truth begins.

To theorize about the identity of Jack the Ripper is to navigate a minefield of rumors, sophistry and contradictions. Entire encyclopedias have been dedicated to collecting suspects. And with each passing year, they seem to become more and more expansive. Although there are hundreds of potential suspects, only a dozen deserve more than brief consideration. Some of the most sensational contenders include famous authors and artists, as well as high-ranking officials and members of the Royal Family. But these grand conspiracies and elaborate deceptions seem hopelessly engineered against the sheer simplicity of a suspect like Charles Lechmere. An unassuming delivery driver on his way to work.

Personally, I remain unconvinced that Jack the Ripper has even been identified as a suspect. The few discussed in this video are likely candidates, but it is still possible to make persuasive arguments against them. The same applies to all those who are excluded by necessity. None of them can offer anything but ambiguity and circumstance. With a pool of suspects numbering in the hundreds, that might seem unlikely. But London was the largest city in the world. Home to the largest port in the world. It was a city of millions of people with a large population of poorly documented vagrants.

It is not difficult to imagine a humble sailor... ...butcher, doctor, soldier, barber, merchant, porter, clerk, carman, watchman... ...mixing into the slums of Whitechapel like a grain of sand.