Ripperologist 112

RIPPEROLOGIST MAGAZINE
Issue 112, March 2010

QUOTE FOR MARCH:
‘That a man who has twice cheated blatantly in the international arena, and been caught both times, should now be
rewarded with an ambassador’s status defies horror. What is the message we are sending to cricket-crazy youngsters?
Cheat and you will surely prosper? We might as well make Jack the Ripper the national saint.’
Masood Hasan on the appointment of international cricketer Shahid Afridi as Pakistan’s national ambassador on environment
Over the Top, The News, Islamabad, Pakistan, 7 March 2010
Features We would like to acknowledge the assistance given by various

people in the production of this issue of Ripperologist -- thank you!
Letters to the City Police: The ‘Prospective Elucidator’

By John Bennett The views, conclusions and opinions expressed in signed
articles, essays, letters and other items published in
Ripperologist are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views, conclusions and opinions of Ripperologist or
City Beat: Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, L.S.A., M.R.C.S., L.M.
its editors. The views, conclusions and opinions expressed in
By Neil Bell and Robert Clack unsigned articles, essays, news reports, reviews and other
items published in Ripperologist are the responsibility of
Ripperologist and its editorial team.
George William Foote, Flowers of Free Thought, and ‘Jehovah the Ripper’ We occasionally use material we believe has been placed
in the public domain. It is not always possible to identify and
By Christopher T. George contact the copyright holder; if you claim ownership of some-
thing we have published we will be pleased to make a prop-
er acknowledgement.
The BBC TV’s Sherlock Holmes Productions of the Past Decade The contents of Ripperologist No. 112 March 2010, including
By Jonathan Rees the compilation of all materials and the unsigned articles,
essays, news reports, reviews and other items are copyright ©
2010 Ripperologist. The authors of signed articles, essays, let-
ters, news reports, reviews and other items retain the copyright
of their respective contributions. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No
Regulars part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval

system, transmitted or otherwise circulated in any form or by
any means, including digital, electronic, printed, mechani-
cal, photocopying, recording or any other, without the prior
Mike Covell — Jack the Blogger permission in writing of Ripperologist. The unauthorised
reproduction or circulation of this publication or any part
thereof, whether for monetary gain or not, is strictly pro-
I Beg to Report hibited and may constitute copyright infringement as defined in
domestic laws and international agreements and give rise to
civil liability and criminal prosecution.
On the Sofa: This month — Simon Wood
Reviews: Official DVD of the Jack the Ripper Conference, 2009; The Wolfman
A Ripperologist’s Bookshelf: Simon Wood
Dear Rip
PO Box 735, Maidstone, Kent, UK ME17 1JF. contact@ripperologist.biz
Editorial Team Subscriptions Advertising

Ripperologist is published monthly in electronic for- Advertising in Ripperologist costs £50.00 for a full
Executive Editor mat. The cost is £12.00 for six issues. Cheques can page and £25.00 for a half-page. All adverts are full
Adam Wood
only be accepted in £ sterling, made payable to colour and can include clickable links to your website
Editor Ripperologist and sent to the address above. The sim- or email.
Christopher T George
plest and easiest way to subscribe is via PayPal —
Editors-at-Large send to contact@ripperologist.biz Submissions
Paul Begg; Eduardo Zinna
Back Issues We welcome articles on any topic related to Jack the
Contributing Editors Single PDF files of issue 62 onwards are available at Ripper, the East End of London or Victoriana. Please
Mike Covell; Chris Scott
£2 each. send your submissions to contact@ripperologist.biz.
Art Director Thank you!
Jane Coram
Consultants
Stewart P. Evans; Loretta Lay; Donald Rumbelow;
Stephen P. Ryder
Issue 112, March 2010
QUOTE FOR MARCH:
The Wolfman breaks no new ground as a horror or werewolf film; yes, it's a remake, but it'd be a familiar yarn even if it wasn't. It's basically
Sleepy Hollow crossed with From Hell, with a werewolf instead of Jack the Ripper. The Wolfman invites comparisons to the Ripper tale with
the (rather nifty) inclusion of Abberline, the real-life detective who investigated the Whitechapel murders (and was played by Johnny Depp
in From Hell). In the case of this movie, the use of Abberline speaks to why some characters initially doubt the werewolf story; Londoners
had recently seen just how savage a human being could be, so why believe such heinous killings are the work of some mythical creature? I
think I'd preferred to have followed Abberline for an entire movie rather than the dour, remote and unpleasant Talbots.
Jim Vejvoda's review of The Wolfman, IGN Moveis, 11 February 2010.
Features We would like to acknowledge the assistance given by various

people in the production of this issue of Ripperologist -- thank you!
Letters to the City Police: The ‘Prospective Elucidator’

By John Bennett The views, conclusions and opinions expressed in signed
articles, essays, letters and other items published in
Ripperologist are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views, conclusions and opinions of Ripperologist or
City Beat: Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, L.S.A., M.R.C.S., L.M.
its editors. The views, conclusions and opinions expressed in
By Neil Bell and Robert Clack unsigned articles, essays, news reports, reviews and other
items published in Ripperologist are the responsibility of
Ripperologist and its editorial team.
George William Foote, Flowers of Free Thought, and ‘Jehovah the Ripper’ We occasionally use material we believe has been placed
in the public domain. It is not always possible to identify and
By Christopher T. George contact the copyright holder; if you claim ownership of some-
thing we have published we will be pleased to make a prop-
er acknowledgement.
The BBC TV’s Sherlock Holmes Productions of the Past Decade The contents of Ripperologist No. 112 March 2010, including
By Jonathan Rees the compilation of all materials and the unsigned articles,
essays, news reports, reviews and other items are copyright ©
2010 Ripperologist. The authors of signed articles, essays, let-
ters, news reports, reviews and other items retain the copyright
of their respective contributions. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No
Regulars part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval

system, transmitted or otherwise circulated in any form or by
any means, including digital, electronic, printed, mechani-
cal, photocopying, recording or any other, without the prior
Mike Covell — Jack the Blogger permission in writing of Ripperologist. The unauthorised
reproduction or circulation of this publication or any part
thereof, whether for monetary gain or not, is strictly pro-
I Beg to Report hibited and may constitute copyright infringement as defined in
domestic laws and international agreements and give rise to
civil liability and criminal prosecution.
On the Sofa: This month — Simon Wood
Reviews: Official DVD of the Jack the Ripper Conference, 2009; The wolfman
A Ripperologist’s Bookshelf: Simon Wood
Dear Rip
PO Box 735, Maidstone, Kent, UK ME17 1JF. contact@ripperologist.biz
Editorial Team Subscriptions Advertising

Ripperologist is published monthly in electronic for- Advertising in Ripperologist costs £50.00 for a full
Executive Editor mat. The cost is £12.00 for six issues. Cheques can page and £25.00 for a half-page. All adverts are full
Adam Wood
only be accepted in £ sterling, made payable to colour and can include clickable links to your website
Editor Ripperologist and sent to the address above. The sim- or email.
Christopher T George
plest and easiest way to subscribe is via PayPal —
Editors-at-Large send to contact@ripperologist.biz Submissions
Paul Begg; Eduardo Zinna
Back Issues We welcome articles on any topic related to Jack the
Contributing Editors Single PDF files of issue 62 onwards are available at Ripper, the East End of London or Victoriana. Please
Mike Covell; Chris Scott
£2 each. send your submissions to contact@ripperologist.biz.
Art Director Thank you!
Jane Coram
Consultants
Stewart P. Evans; Loretta Lay; Donald Rumbelow;
Stephen P. Ryder
Side Bars and
Side Issues:
Off the Beaten Track?
EDITORIAL by CHRISTOPHER T GEORGE
Non-Ripperologists probably think that the main aim of Ripperologists is to identify

the Whitechapel Murderer aka Saucy Jack, the infamous bloody murderer of the
streets of London in 1888. But actually, speaking personally, I find that the side
topics to the case are often as interesting as what outsiders might assume our main
conversation to be—Who Was Jack?
Indeed, as many of us often say, we might never know for sure who Jack was, and the case will
remain forever an enduring mystery. Of course, a ‘side bar’ to that thought is the often expressed
accusation ‘Ripperologists don’t want us to know who Jack was!’ Or even the charge that we
Ripper folk have a vested interest in ensuring that the mystery goes on. But if you ask most authors
on the case how much money they have made, I am sure they will say that it is not very much.
The truth is that with the exception, say, of the late Stephen Knight and mystery novelist-turned-
Ripper author Patricia Cornwell not much moolah is to be made from the sales of a Ripper book.
And with the increasing number of titles on the Ripper case and the rising prices of books these
days, those returns are likely to be ever diminishing. Think again, Ripper scribe!
Now, as we know, the traditional idea is that there were five murders
by the same hand, or as Sir Melville MacNaghten wrote in his 1914
memoirs, Days of My Years, ‘the Whitechapel murderer committed five
murders, and—to give the devil his due—no more.’ That is, he meant
of course the so-called ‘canonical murders’: Mary Ann ‘Polly’ Nichols,
Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, and Mary Jane
Kelly.
There have been attempts by some to include additional murders,
such as the earlier 1888 murders of Emma Smith and Martha Tabram
(he was learning his trade), to exclude Liz Stride (lover Michael Kidney
did it) or even to leave Mary Jane Kelly off the list (her bloke, sacked
Billingsgate porter Joe Barnett, ‘done it’), and to include later murders
such as ‘Clay Pipe’ Alice MacKenzie—who had her throat cut but was
not mutilated in July 1889 (he had become lax and sloppy)—or the
Pinchin Street torso discovered that September (he changed his modus
operandi). Sir Melville Macnaghten
Ripperologist 112 March 2010 1

So this is where we come to what may be the extreme ‘outliers’ in the Whitechapel Murders
case. One such crime is the killing of Carrie Brown aka Old Shakespeare, murdered and mutilated in
Brooklyn, New York, USA, on 23 April 1891. Her demise is sometimes credited to George Chapman
(Severin Klosowski) or to Dr Francis Tumblety, or else to a sailor.
Then there are some contemporary murders other than in the East End of London that are
sometimes said to be ‘Ripper’ murders. I can think of two such crimes in particular that have been
studied by modern authors: one in Northeast England and one on the South Coast.
Recently, retired Northumbria Police inspector and police forensic artist
Norman Kirtlan1 has suggested that the mutilation murder of Jane Beadmore,
aged 27, on the night of 22–23 September 1888 on Birtley Fell, County Durham,
might have been a Ripper murder. Mr Kirtlan’s belief that it was a Ripper
crime follows Patricia Cornwell’s claim in her 2002 book Portrait of a Killer -
Jack the Ripper: Case Closed that the murder could have been a non-London
murder by her suspect, the artist Walter Sickert. This, despite the fact that
Scotland Yard Inspector Thomas Roots and Dr George Bagster Phillips travelled
up to Gateshead and decided that the murder was not linked to the London
crimes. And also despite the reality that a labourer named William Waddell,
22, confessed to the woman’s murder. In fact, Waddell was found guilty of the
crime and hanged at Durham prison on 18 December 18882. Mr Kirtlan states:
‘My assertion is that because of extremely weak policing methods, and the
Norm Kirtlan
reliance on confessions that were obtained under extreme duress (compare
William Waddell’s five sleepless days before questioning and a confession that is wholly laughable -
with PACE rules of evidence today) a conviction would NEVER have been obtained in 2010. Because
parochial pressures were so great and evidence so weak, links with London can not properly be
discounted.’ (E-mail from Norm Kirtlan to Christopher T George, 3 March 2010.)
Another killing that has been suggested to have been a Ripper crime is the knife murder of
schoolboy Percy Knight Serle, 11, at Havant, Hampshire on 26 November 1888. In that case,
another boy, Robert Husband, also aged 11, was charged with the willful murder of Serle, tried
at Winchester Assizes before Justice Sir James Fitzjames Stephen and found not guilty on 20
December 18883. Back in 1999, we learned that former police officer Gavin Maidment, senior
assistant at Havant Museum, was investigating the Serle murder as a Ripper crime, and planning
to write a book about it4.
Are such authors on the right path or are they way off the beaten track?
1 ‘Did Jack the Ripper kill North woman?’, by Linda Richards, Sunday Sun, 21 February 2010 available at www.
sundaysun.co.uk/news/north-east-news/2010/02/21/did-jack-the-ripper-kill-north-woman-79310-25880048/. Mr
Kirtlan will discuss his theories in an evening he has entitled ‘Jack the Ripper - The Truth’ at Gateshead Heritage
at St Mary’s, Oakwellgate, Gateshead, on 10 March. The talk starts at 6.30pm and tickets are £2 from the box office
0191 433 6965. Mr Kirtlan is also running a forensics course for the WEA at the Bridge Hotel, Newcastle, beginning
on 8 September. For enquiries email forensicart@yahoo.co.uk
2 Alan Sharp, ‘A Ripper Victim That Wasn’t: The Capture of Jane Beadmore’s Killer’, available at www.casebook.
org/dissertations/rn-beadmore.html and ‘William Waddell’ in Christopher Morley’s Jack the Ripper: A Suspect
Guide, available at www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/cjmorley/192.html
3 ‘The Havant Murder’, The Times, 21 December 1888, available at www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18881221.

html
4 ‘Did Jack the Ripper kill a Hampshire schoolboy?’ by Sophie Goodchild, The Independent, 31 January 1999, available
at www.independent.co.uk/news/did-jack-the-ripper-kill-a-hampshire-schoolboy-1077419.html

Letters to the City Police
The ‘Prospective Elucidator’
By John Bennett
At the beginning of October 1888, John F Hunt, a bookseller and stationer of Biggleswade,
Bedfordshire, put pen to paper regarding the Whitechapel Murders in the form of a communi-
cation addressed to the City of London Police. He was certainly not alone. The murder of
Catherine Eddowes saw the City Police well-and-truly drawn into the sensational events of that
autumn. Its headquarters at 26 Old Jewry was deluged with over a hundred letters from mem-
bers of the public just during the time it took to identify Eddowes’ body.
The surviving cache of letters to the City Police was recovered by Donald Rumbelow from a broken cupboard in the
Old Jewry basement about 1969. After residing for many years in the Corporation of London Records Office, these let-
ters are now kept in ten boxes at the London Metropolitan Archives. The boxes contain 396 numbered items, mostly
letters from the public along with clippings, business cards, envelopes and other ephemera received between early
September 1888 and May 1890. Out of this earnest, and sometimes unintentionally amusing, collection of missives, only
nine claim to have been written by the murderer. Notable inclusions are Roslyn D’Onston’s letter from the London
Hospital proposing his ‘juives’ theory regarding the Goulston
City of London Headquarters
Street writing; a postcard offering the services of contemporary
theorist and busybody Lyttleton Forbes Winslow; and at least
one ‘Jack the Ripper’ letter later cited by author Patricia
Cornwell in the course of her attempts to finger Walter Sickert
as the killer.
As a record of public thinking at the time, these letters are
fascinating and important. There were about 301 separate
authors, usually offering advice. The most popular suggestions
were that the police should dress as women, or have decoys
wearing steel collars. Some correspondents named individuals
who they felt were responsible for the murders, perhaps motivat-
ed in some cases by some personal grudge against the people
named. Some information on alleged perpetrators was gleaned
from unconventional sources. It is in this category that we place
Mr John F Hunt, the most persistent and, for the police, perhaps
the most annoying letter-writer in the entire collection. Over the
course of five months, Mr Hunt offered the names and addresses
of possible suspects sent to him by voices from the spirit world,
combining these presentiments with no small amount of detec-
tive work of his own. His efforts were in equal measure comical,
sincere, mercenary and, if anything, infuriatingly persistent to
the authorities. But who was John F Hunt? Perhaps, considering
the nature of his endeavours, it would be useful to find out a lit-
tle about the man himself.

Biggleswade High Street in 2009, from where Hunt ran his stationer’s business (John Mallord)
John Francis Hunt, the youngest son of Francis Hunt, a ‘proprietor of houses’, was born in Branston, Lincolnshire
about 1830. He had an older brother Francis (b.1821) and a sister Winifred (b.1824). Hunt senior was born in 1770,
making him sixty years old at the time of John’s birth. His wife Anne was twenty years younger than him, and it is
entirely possible that the Hunt children were from a previous marriage. In 1841, the family was listed as living at
Willingham Street, Market Rasen, Lincolnshire. Within the following decade John’s older siblings left home. By this
time, John, now aged about twenty-one, was working as a stationer’s apprentice, a trade he would follow for the
rest of his life. At the time of the 1861 census he had relocated to Stratton Street, Biggleswade, and was in business
as a ‘stationer, bookseller and printer’. Interestingly, he had been joined by his widowed sister Winifred McPherson,
who was classed as a housekeeper.
From that time onward, the circumstances of John F Hunt’s life would not change. The records reveal that he
maintained his stationer’s and bookseller’s business in High Street, Biggleswade, for the next forty years, lived with
his sister throughout and never married. Not an unusual state of affairs for the time, but interesting in the context
of the kind of man Hunt appeared to be from his communications with the City of London Police forty miles away.
On Wednesday 3 October 1888 — perhaps moved by the latest set of outrages, but more likely with one eye on
the reward offered by the Lord Mayor in the wake of the Eddowes murder — John F Hunt began to unravel his own
unique investigation into the Ripper murders:

Dear Sir
The number and nature of the East End murders and the rewards now offered for the apprehension of the mur-
derer, have induced me to attempt a solution.
For want of a more explicit term I am — I have reason to believe — a ‘Sensitive.’
Without troubling you with the process — which indeed is nothing more than an unusually acute oriental impres-
siveness or sensitiveness — I can in confidence tell you that the strange result of my listening to a ‘communication’
is this.
My abnormal informants say the murderer is an Italian marble sculptor or marble mason (which ever it may be,)
and that he is residing at 34 Wilson Street, Old Street Road.
In the communication I have also received his name which is an Italian name but it may be advisable to with-
hold it at present.
If there is no Italian at this address I shall conclude I have been deceived, but if there is one then the commu-
nication will have extraordinary significance.
I am not attempting a practical joke. The communication may or may not be true. I have found in former com-
munications some to be true, and in some not the least truth. It is totally impossible for the ‘sensitive’ absolutely
to know the identity of the communicator.
It will be worth while to make enquiry, even if no good
Hunt’s letter making plain his desire to win the reward offered (6 Oct 1888).
comes of it.
Please do not let my name transpire. I enclose an enve-
lope for your reply.
I am dear Sir
Yours faithfully
JH
Mr Hunt’s setting down of a verifiable address and an

Italian occupant would no doubt make his claims open to
immediate verification. Yet he was careful enough to include
the caveat that his spiritual sources could well be deceiving
him. Perhaps one thing the police were not necessarily keen
on was having the public tell them how to do their job; Hunt’s
statement that ‘it will be worth while to make enquiry’ may
not have gone down too well with them. Such decisions would
be for the authorities themselves to make, not a total stranger
from the Home Counties.
Two days later, Hunt wrote to the Lord Mayor, Sir James
Whitehead, forthrightly stating his intent regarding the sub-
stantial reward offered:
Private.
My Lord
Please enrol my name and address as a candidate attempt-

ing to discover the man who has committed the series of mur-
ders known as the ‘Whitechapel’ murders.
You have offered a reward of £500. I hope to be the suc-
cessful claimant.

Hunt obviously had huge ambitions in this direction and with
good reason. In 1888, £500 was a considerable amount of
money, equivalent to about £40,000 today. This reward was a
swift move by the Mayor and the Corporation of London at a
time when the Home Office and Scotland Yard were still round-
ly rejecting calls for an official reward. Our intrepid investiga-
tor was a businessman of independent means and, apart from an
older sister living with him, appeared to have no dependents.
He probably felt that such a potential windfall was too big to
ignore.
The proposed location of the murderer, ‘Wilson Street, Old
Street Road’ did indeed exist. It was a small street tucked
behind the north-eastern junction of Old Street and City Road,
a fair but not too substantial walk from the murder locale. It was
an entirely residential area populated, according to General
William Booth of the Salvation Army, by people with good aver-
age earnings. But was it the home of ‘Jack the Ripper’? Mr Hunt,
perhaps aware that further confirmation of his abilities and
those of his supernatural acquaintances was desirable, looked
further into the matter. He outlined his latest findings in a let-
ter to the City Police written on the morning of Monday, 8
October. After confirming that his ‘contacts’ had been consulted
over twenty times with the same results, he made light of a new
development:
When the reply first came to me I did not know that there
was a Wilson Street in London but on turning to an old directo-
Hunt’s letter of 8 October 1888, outlining his latest findings. ry of Principal Streets and places in London but in 1857, I saw
there was a ‘Wilson Street’ Old Street Road. I therefore con-
cluded that it must be that street as it seemed to be in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel. Since I wrote I have
referred to this street directory again and I see therein another Wilson Street also in the district namely Wilson
Street Finsbury Sqre. Would it not be well to scrutinize also No 34 in Wilson St. Finsbury Sqre Personally I have no
acquaintance with these streets and indeed I did not know of their existence apart from the ‘communication’ and
the corroborative information supplied by this old directory
As was common in those days, street names were often duplicated within quite small areas; Whitechapel itself
could boast several George, King and John Streets, for example. This second Wilson Street still exists; it runs from
South Place near Moorgate Station, alongside Finsbury Square to Worship Street. It was only about a two-minute walk
from Wilson Street, Old Street Road. Hunt was adamant he was being pointed in the right direction:
In this instance the peculiarity is this — all the communicating ‘spirits’, or ‘influences’, or whatever you may
choose to call them, give uniformly ‘34 Wilson Street’, as the location of the Whitechapel murderer.
If they varied their statements and gave other addresses occasionally, then I should lose confidence!
I leave the investigation in your hands. If he is at this address and found to be a maniac he must be taken care of.
Yours faithfully, JH

Location of the two Wilson Streets mentioned in the letters.

This letter was the first to display any official input from the police themselves: something that became a reg-
ular addition to Hunt’s letters once they had passed through the hands of Col. Sir James Fraser, the Commissioner,
City Police. In characteristically red ink, Fraser merely wrote ‘Not acknowledged’. The fabulous leads and theories
of the Biggleswade ‘See-er’ were already falling on deaf ears.
On 21 October, undaunted by the lack of response, Hunt devoted an hour of his Sunday evening to ‘the record-
ing of sensitive impressions’. One can well imagine him sitting peacefully in his parlour, absorbing messages from the
spirit world whilst his sister Winifred busied herself with more mundane matters. Fired up by what he had learnt
from this particularly fruitful evening, he wrote to Sir James Fraser personally in a lengthy letter the following day:
Without attempting to explain again the process I will simply record the result.
The communicating spirit was not one of the murdered women, but of Alice Mary Tuke.
Hunt then went through an arduous process of confirming the murderer’s address with the supposed Miss Tuke,
going through a convoluted numbers game only to come up once again with ‘34 Wilson Street’. As far as his spirit
contact is concerned, it is interesting to note that an Alice Mary Tuke died in Hitchin on 19 September 1875, aged
25 years. Hitchin, a small town in Hertfordshire, was no more than nine miles from Biggleswade. In any case, ‘Alice
Tuke’ furnished Hunt with an interesting description of the murderer:
With reference to the murderer himself. He is a foreigner — an Italian. His occupation is connected with mar-
ble working. In height about 5ft 9 in. Moderately slender and muscular. Complexion not so dark as the ordinary
Italian. He has no beard or whisker — a sort of hairless or clean face. He has a broadish forehead but not high. Dark
and deep sunken eyes. Rather high cheek bones. The mouth is rather sunken, and the face is somewhat contracted
near the mouth. He might be called in-mouthed, like one who has lost his or her teeth. This gives a little pointed-
ness to the chin but not much. I had a little difficulty in ascertaining the color of the hair, but at last came the
assurance that it is sandy or what we call red hair.
Apart from the notion of the ‘foreigner’, an element which appears in several important descriptions of men seen
with the victims before the murders, one is drawn to the description of the eyes. The unusual nature of killers’ eyes
has been mentioned in accounts given by people such as spiritualist Stuart Cumberland and Mrs Fiddymont, and in
the story of Sergeant Stephen White’s alleged, and probably invented, encounter with a man immediately after a
murder had taken place. The thin, pointed face again is evident in Cumberland’s vision. Mrs Fiddymont’s man, seen
in the Prince Albert pub on the morning of the Chapman murder also had sandy hair; her description has led many
to believe he may have been contemporary suspect Jacob Isenschmidt. In any case, Hunt’s man, facially at least,
cuts a distinctive figure. Hunt went on:
My next enquiry was relative Death register entry for Alice Mary Tuke.
to the weapon with which he

committed the murders. Strange
to say the weapon is different to
anything I had hitherto con-
ceived. I went through the
whole list of all I could think of
and a ‘No’ came to all my sug-
gestions and enquiries. At last I
received the assurance that the

weapon he used is a strong putty knife which he has specially sharpened — the kind of knife which glaziers use only
specially sharpened...
I then asked if the portions of the bodies which had been removed by excision were still extant? or had they
been destroyed? The replies somewhat confused me. The communicator says the murderer has these parts still in
his possession. I then enquired where they are concealed. The strange answer was this: they are in his sitting room
carefully wrapped up in old newspapers and placed in a leathern hat-box which locks up and it stands on the top
shelf of a cupboard in his sitting room!
I asked the state of the murderer’s mind. Is he a monomaniac? The reply was that he undoubtedly is a cunning
maniac, and that he is therefore not responsible for what he does. That he is the victim of a homicidal or murder-
ous propensity which he can not control.
I am dear Sir
Yours faithfully
All in all, a confident suggestion as to the identity and behaviour of the killer.
On 13 November, Hunt again wrote to the City Police requesting a placard relating to the £500 reward. He had
also been keeping abreast of current developments in the case and referred to his own portrayal of the killer in which
he found strong parallels with the description given by George Hutchinson the day before of the man seen with Mary
Kelly on the morning of her death. Hunt was full of confidence at these new revelations and stated ‘you must admit
that this description has been more or less corroborated.’
A fortnight later he was able to thank the Police for forwarding on the placard, as well as acknowledging the
assurance that other rewards still held good. Despite the earnest nature of his attempts at guiding the police to the
Whitechapel Murderer, it was clear that he still kept one eye on the money.
In a letter dated 7 December, Hunt informed the authorities that he was able to give the name of the killer as
well as his address:
If I send you a name and address, or names and addresses will you recopy those names and addresses, and post
them back to me with your signature attached, and the date you received them?
My reasons for this proposal are these: if I supply the name and address of the East End murderer, and the infor-
mation leads to his apprehension and conviction, then I should be entitled to the various sums offered as rewards
for his conviction.
One of Fraser’s dismissive notes (7 Dec 1888).
By this time, it seems, the police had begun to

grow tired of Hunt’s missives. Reappearing on the
back of this particular letter was Fraser’s distinctive
red pen: ‘Let the writer know that his assistance is
not required’. Another letter was received from our
erstwhile investigator the following day saying that
the killer operated under an alias. Perhaps dissatis-
fied that he was not getting the responses he felt he
deserved, Hunt signed off by saying ‘Regretting that I
have been the recipient of a little discourtesy’.
Fraser’s red pen went to work again. Bearing in mind
the sheer number of unhelpful and often preachy let-
ters the police were receiving by this time, the
Commissioner’s exasperation is almost tangible:

‘Take no more notice of this man’s grave unreality JF’.
Whilst the rest of Biggleswade was no doubt getting settled for Christmas, Hunt was still in pursuit of his quarry
and, in the light of the outgoings required over the festive season, probably of the rewards too. On Christmas Eve,
Winifred may have been making preparations for the day ahead while her otherwise distracted brother took the oppor-
tunity to write yet another letter to the disinterested City Police Commissioner:
It is not that I am doubting your honor, but if it should so happen that the name I send is afterwards proved to
be that of the individual who has committed the East End murders I should then be entitled to the various rewards.
Now, in that case, if there was any doubt or quibbling, the possession of your testimonial would at once remove all
doubt from their minds, and substantiate your verbal assurance.
I cannot perceive there is anything unreasonable in this proposition.
I am, dear sir

Yours faithfully
J.F. Hunt
‘Take no notice of this’ wrote the red pen.
On Boxing Day, Hunt fired off another letter. On this occasion, there was a hint of desperation about it; its author
was almost pleading with the authorities to let him unofficially join their ranks:
I cannot see any valid reason why you will not allow me to be one of your unattached auxiliaries and volun-
teers, for the capture of the mysterious criminal...
Moreover if my assistance should prove to be effectual you could retain me as a reserve for similar emergency
if it should afterwards be found that this criminal has imitators, which is not at all unlikely, as morbid proceedings
are sometimes mentally infectious.
If my information is correct you are not only on a wrong scent, but you will also find that the conviction of the
criminal will be a very difficult matter. Still if I am correct it will be a great gain to know who it is, so that his pro-
ceedings may be under strict espionage.
It will be useless to arrest him until you have evidence to convict him.
By now, the collection of Hunt’s letters was obviously growing and it was clear that the police had no intention
of dealing any more with this most importunate of correspondents; Fraser scrawled at the end of this letter: ‘Put
this with the other letters from the same writer, but take no further notice of it. JF’.
By the beginning of 1889, Hunt was casting his net wider. He queried the Star about the dates of the murders in
order to confirm a new theory. The newspaper obliged in its ‘Answers to Correspondents’ section of 3 January duly
giving him the dates. Writing again to the City Police, Hunt expounded the notion given to him by his spirit inform-
ants that the crimes were committed during periods of ‘homicidal lunacy’:
My informants said it is a recurrent periodical mania, having passive intervals of about 21 days between each
and that the mania lasts about one week. Its periodicity is very much like menstruation in females. I am informed
that he suffers from what is commonly called determination of blood to the head. This comes on after intervals
of about three weeks and lasts for about seven or eight days. During this mania time the animal passions are inten-
sified, and when there is added the excitement of sexual indulgence, the phrensy is suddenly developed into homi-
cidal mania, and all humane or moral consequences are for the moment blotted from the mind and conscience...
If you carefully compare the dates you will see that the theory stated to me is about correct.

2nd murder Aug 7th
3rd ‘ Aug 31) Both during the
4th ‘ Sept 8) one phrensy
5th ‘ Sept 30) ditto, ditto
6th ‘ Oct a blank No chance
Occurred for him
7th ‘ Nov 9th Successful
8th ‘ Decr 20 Successful.
These dates clearly indicate regular periodic times of homicidal lunacy.

He will need no watching until January 9th.
Interestingly, Hunt includes Martha Tabram as the second victim — not an unusual belief at the time — but fails
to list Emma Smith. The date 20 December corresponded of course to the death of Rose Mylett in Clarke’s Yard,
Poplar, the investigation of which became a messy to-ing and fro-ing between Robert Anderson and numerous doc-
tors in debate over the cause of death. Hunt’s letter was written on the first day of the Mylett inquest.
This penultimate missive in John F Hunt’s long campaign to help the police demonstrated a sudden change of
stance. Sure, he was still receiving advice from his ‘informants’, but rather than just accepting names and places,
he was now listening to their ideas and attempting to make some sense of it all by initiating enquiries of his own.
Perhaps he thought the police would listen to him more if he showed some willingness to work within the realms of
this world rather than rely on words from ‘the other side’.
It was to be two months before Hunt would communicate again. This time his endeavours demonstrated that the
embryonic detective work he had initiated previously had found a firm foothold in his methodology. Was this his last
ditch attempt to impress Fraser, prompt the police to follow up on his ideas and perhaps lead them to the Whitechapel
murderer, thus securing the fat reward he so obviously craved?
In this, his final, letter, dated 4 March 1889, Hunt outlined his investigations into a new lead. Before doing that,
however, he had to backtrack over his previous information:
Another spiritual message!

I hope this is a genuine communication. All the preceding communications have been proved to be ‘boguses’.
If I remember rightly the first said that ‘Jack the Ripper’s’ name was ‘Seaglio’, an Italian marble mason.
The second was that he had changed his name from ‘Seaglio’ to ‘Persini’, and had become a teacher of lan-
guages.
The third communication said the name was ‘Joseph Ringwood’ a slaughterman, and that he lived or lodged in
High Street, Poplar. Moreover they gave such minute details that I thought it must be genuine.
With reference to the fourth communication, having previously received deceptive and unreliable messages I
lost faith in them. I received several others, but did not record them. At length I received a message to this effect:
They (the spirit communicators) said they would give me seven names and addresses, all of which should be ficti-
tious, except one name. Then, in accordance with their dictation, I wrote down the seven names, and the several
addresses belonging to them.
Well, when I had got them, I was still as much perplexed as ever, or rather more so, because even if the state-
ment was true I could not identify the genuine name. Thinking that perhaps it, like the preceding messages might
after all, be only another lot of deception and moonshine, I put the paper in my pocket, and soon after being
engaged with business matters I thought no more about it.
The fact that Hunt confessed to having been misled by his spiritual informants must have had the police chortling
into their tea or grunting with exasperation at yet another of Hunt’s preposterous dead-ends. It is worth noting that

Parts of J F Hunt’s final, ten-page-long letter (4 Mar 1889).
research by the present author has failed to find anybody named ‘Seaglio’ or ‘Persini’, let alone a Joseph Ringwood
living anywhere near Poplar. But Hunt, this most persistent of writers, had one last trick up his sleeve: hands-on
investigation, something which took him time and legwork, proving at least that he was as keen as he was misguid-
ed. Hunt’s inquiries were, to say the least, convoluted. They are perhaps worth quoting at length:
About two days afterwards, while I was getting my dinner, and thinking about nothing at the moment except
the dinner, a message came in these words: ‘The man’s name is Jack Hinton, a slaughterman.’ As soon as I heard
this, I said to myself I believe that name is amongst those given the other day to me. After dinner I referred to
the list and found the name ‘Jack Hinton, 10 Union Street, Cable Street.’
I felt a little interest because the name ‘Hinton’ had come a second time. But I had no means of verifying the
statement. At last I remembered that a Firm of ironmongers in Biggleswade had a London Directory for 1884. I
therefore went and borrowed the Directory. I could find no such name as Hinton in Union Street, and Union St.
apparently was not immediately connected with Cable Street but was, in fact, a branch street from the Commercial
Road East. Yet, strange to say the Directory shewed that there was a William ‘Hinton,’ butcher their living at 369
Commercial Road East. I could find no ‘Jack’ Hinton anywhere in the Directory. I then returned the Directory. Then
at the first opportunity I tried to obtain another communication from my spirit friends. I asked of them Is ‘Jack’
Hinton the son of William Hinton the butcher? They said, ‘Yes.’ Then it occurred to me that if John Hinton is the
son of William Hinton it is probable that the son’s name would not be in the Directory.

By procuring a loaned copy of the latest London Directory, Hunt made a new discovery which prompted him to
do a little more detective work — although the spirits were never too far away. Hunt wrote about his experiences in
this form:
I was greatly surprised to find that even ‘William’ Hinton butcher had totally disappeared from the new Directory.
Moreover I found that at his old address, 369 Commercial Road East is a Mr White, butcher. As the Hintons had dis-
appeared I thought I would write to Mr White, who would, probably, know where his predecessors are. Therefore,
under an assumed name, and a different address, I wrote to him, asking if he knew where the Hinton family were,
and what had become of them? Of course, I did not give him the remotest idea what my object was in making the
enquiry. When I wrote to him my spirit friends prompted me to ask if Mr Hinton’s son’s name was John and also if
he had a daughter named Matilda.
On 14 February, Mr White politely replied to Hunt’s letter, revealing some interesting facts that appeared to cor-
roborate the information alluded to by the ‘informants’:
Dear Sir,
In reply to yours which I received yesterday, I am sorry I cannot give you much information about Mr Hinton, both
him and his wife are still living, they live somewhere in Loughborough [sic], Camberwell way. He has a shop in the
Smithfield Market wholesale. He had a partner named Clare, but he has lately died. He has a grown up son. They call
him Willie but I do not know if he is called John as well. There is two daughters: one named Sophia and the other (my
wife thinks) was called Matilda. Mr Hinton is a tall, stout man but I have not seen him for several years, as I buy in
another market in the East End.
Yours respectfully
W. White.
We would not expect Mr White to lie. In the 1891 census, William Hinton (aged 55) is indeed recorded as living
at 23 Cambria Road, Lambeth, with his wife Sophia and son Frederick. Going back further in the records, in 1881 the
Hintons are living at 369 Commercial Road and William is a butcher, as stated in the Directory entries. Two other daugh-
ters are listed, Sophia and Ellen. There is no record of a son named William, John or Jack, and Frederick’s middle name
Commercial Road
was James. Neither is there a Matilda, although the
1861 census names Lucy as the eldest of the Hinton
children.
But what is astonishing in this context is infor-
mation gleaned from the 1861 and 1871 censuses.
The Hintons are listed here as living at 2 Union
Row, Mile End Old Town. Hinton was also regis-
tered at this address in 1873 as licensed to keep a
slaughterhouse. Hunt’s paranormal advisers
appear to have been on the right track!
Was ‘Jack’ Hinton Jack the Ripper? Undoubtedly
not. Hunt himself was cautious in his final words to
the police: ‘you will now see there is not sufficient
evidence to justify an arrest but just sufficient to
make enquiries about him privately, and to watch

him’. And with these words, 59-year-old John Francis Hunt appeared to give up his quest for the killer and the reward
after sending nearly fifty pages of suggestions to the City of London Police over the course of five months. Some of his
letters are almost booklets, such is their length. His themes were not unique, as many so-called ‘seers’ and visionaries
attempted to assist the authorities with their particular gifts. Yet Hunt remains probably the most enthusiastic and per-
sistent communicator in the whole history of public correspondence on the Whitechapel Murders. He died in 1906 after
a lifetime in the stationery business. We may imagine him as a quiet little man, devoted to his sister Winifred and a
rock in the once intimate community of Biggleswade, with an ever ready supply of writing materials. His small legacy
to history, as somebody who attempted so enthusiastically to help catch the infamous Jack the Ripper, rests in the
London Metropolitan Archives. It not only allows us a glimpse of his determined personality but, like other letters from
the public, reveals the Victorian mindset during those exciting and terrifying months.
Sources
London Metropolitan Archives CLA/048/CS/02 — Box 3.15 Nos. 101-114, 292.

Noxious Businesses (Metropolis) — Register of May 1873.
Biggleswade Trade Directory 1878.
Census 1861, 1871, 1881, 1891.
Birth Deaths & Marriage Register 1875, 1906.
Descriptive Map of London Poverty 1889.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is grateful to the staff of the London Metropolitan Archives, especially Tim Warrender, for his assis-
tance during the photographing of the City Letters, many of which he found highly amusing. Special thanks to
Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow for their input and advice and also to my old friend John Mallord for undertak-
ing the little photographic assignment in Biggleswade.
John Bennett is an author and tour guide who has contributed articles to Ripper Notes, Ripperologist
and the Journal of the Whitechapel Society 1888. His first book E1 — A Journey Through Whitechapel
and Spitalfields was published by Five Leaves in April 2009.

City Beat:
Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, L.S.A., M.R.C.S., L.M.
By Neil Bell and Robert Clack
‘I was called on Sunday morning shortly after 2 o’clock’
On the 21st January 1928, the British Medical Journal ran the following obituary:
Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, who practised in the City of London for many years, died at Chigwell, Essex, on
January 15th, at the advanced age of 85. He was the son of the late Dr. Thomas Brown, who practised in Wormwood
Street, and was born in the City, being educated at Merchant Taylor School and St Thomas’s Hospital. In 1863 he
obtained the diplomas L.S.A., M.R.C.S. and L.M. For more than 52 years he was a medical officer of the City of
London Union, and for over twenty eight years he was surgeon to the City of London Police. He retired in September,
1914, but acted for various younger men in order to release them for war service. He was for some time medical
officer in charge of the 7th Royal Fusiliers. Dr. Gordon Brown was a prominent Freemason, being a past Grand
Officer of the Grand Lodge of England. He was also the Senior Past Master of the Society of Apothecaries of London,
and a former president of the Hunterian society.
Birth and education
Frederick Gordon Brown was born on 10th March 1842. He was the fifth1 son of Dr Thomas Brown and his wife
Mary. Frederick was christened a month later on 22nd April 1842 at St Botolph’s Church in Bishopsgate which was,
ironically, next door to a Watch house which had been used by the Police for some years prior to the building of
Bishopsgate Police Station. Brown attended the acclaimed Merchant Taylors School2. It would seem as if his career
had already been mapped out for him as his education continued at St Thomas’s Hospital Medical School. According
to the Jack the Ripper A-Z, Brown also spent a period of his education in Paris. Brown was undoubtedly an academ-
ic of force because the records of The Medical and Physical Society of St Thomas’s Hospital show that he had a prize
debate paper on diphtheria read sometime during 18603. By the end of April 1863, Brown had passed his examina-
tion to practice. The announcement was made in The Times of 2nd May 1863, and reads:
1 Ipswich Journal 30 January 1869.
2 Merchant Taylors School was founded in 1561 by businessmen of the Merchant Taylors Company. Situated in Suffolk Lane, not far from
St Paul’s Cathedral, the School rebuilt itself after suffering greatly during the Great Fire of London. There have been many scholars who
have progressed from this School with arguably one of the most famous being William Pratt, better known to lovers of classic silver screen
horror movies as Boris Karloff.
3 Kings College London Archives — Medical and Physical Society of St Thomas's Hospital records 1861 - 1964

Finsbury Circus. These are the original buildings and were standing at the time Brown lived there. Photograph, Rob Clack.
APOTHECARIES’-HALL,—The following are the names of gentlemen who passed their examination in the science
and practice of medicine, and received certificates to practice, on Thursday the 30th of April;- Frederick Sutton,
Marton-vicarage, Gainsborough, Lincolnshire; Henry Stubbs, Brierley-hill; John Morton, Holbeach, Lincolnshire;
Frederick Gordon Brown, Finsbury-circus [emphasis ours]; John Reddrop, Tiverton, Devonshire; John William Taylor,
New Malton, Yorkshire; John David Frankish, Christchurch, New Zealand; Thomas Edward Mason, Deal, Kent; Albert
Weaving, Oxford; Charles Phineas Langford, Hingham, Norfolk. The following gentleman also on the same day
passed his first examination;- Thomas Sanders, University College.
One interesting piece of information taken from that period of Brown’s life is that he had been granted his
Surgical Practice Admission card4, which allowed him to attend surgical procedures at Guy’s and St Thomas’s
Hospitals for the period from 1859 till 1861. This record is kept at St Thomas’s Hospital5 alongside the admission card
of a certain Edward Treves, who was granted his admission card for the summer session of 18606. Treves was the
elder brother of Sir Frederick Treves, the physician who postponed Edward VII’s coronation due to the fact that the
King had to endure an operation, conducted by Dr Treves himself. However, despite his notability for carrying out
this prestigious and historic operation, the younger Treves7 is better known for his association with Joseph Merrick,
the Elephant Man! Such is the price of fame and celebrity.
4 St Thomas Medical School Records — Admission Cards 1800 to 1900. LMA Ref: H1/ST/MS/G10
5 St Thomas Hospital is now referred to as St Thomas Hospital. It wasn’t until very recently that the last ‘s’ was dropped. In Browns day
the Hospital was referred to as St Thomas’s.
6 Edward Treves was granted his admission card on 1 May 1860.
7 Frederick Treves was another Merchant Taylors old boy. However, due to the fact he was some years younger than Brown, he and Brown
didn’t attend the school at the same time.

Freemasonry
Throughout his adult life, membership in the Freemasons was a prominent activity for Dr Frederick Gordon
Brown. For nigh on 60 years, Brown was affiliated with one lodge or another and, on some occasions, more than one
lodge.
On 21st January 1868, Brown was initiated into St Paul’s Lodge (No. 194) London8. He passed almost a month
later on 18th February 18689 and on 17th March 1868 he was raised10. Six years later, in 1874, he rose to become
Master11 of the Lodge. Brown’s membership of St Paul’s Lodge ceased in 1875 and within three years he became a
member of the first Masonic Grand Lodge ever created, Grand Master’s Lodge No. 1. This Lodge was established in
1717 and driven by the ideals of the Scientific Revolution, amongst other principles. Brown joined the Lodge on the
9th February 1878, and he remained a member until his death in 1928.
On 25th June 1879, Brown joined the Sir Thomas White Lodge (No. 1820), London. This Lodge was consecrated
in that very year by former scholars and masters of Brown’s old school, The Merchant Taylors. In fact, it appears that
Brown was one of its founding members. He was its Master in both 1889 and 1895. He resigned from this Lodge on
1st March 1901.
Brown’s ultimate achievement in masonry came on 6th April 1886 when he joined the Royal Arch in the Grand
Master’s Lodge No. 1. He served as its Grand Steward12 from 1887 to 1888 and its First Principal in 1895. During 1896,
Brown was Assistant Grand Director of Ceremonies as well as Past Grand Standard Bearer of the Royal Arch. He
resigned from this Chapter in 1904.
In June 1894, Brown became a Founder Member of the Train-bands Lodge (No. 2524), London. Some 17 years
later, he became a Master of that Lodge. As with Grand Master’s No. 1 Lodge, he remained a member of this Lodge
until his death.
Marriage
Brown set up practice at 16 Finsbury Circus along with his partner, Stephen H Appleford. It would seem that
Appleford’s younger sister Emily13 caught Brown’s eye. The pair married at Emily’s local church of St Peter ad
Vincula14 in Coggeshall near Colchester, Essex, on 21st January 186915. What is unusual about the wedding was the
fact that three Reverends presided over it. The
St Peter ad Vincula church — where Frederick and Emily were married. couple were married by Emily’s brother, the Rev
William Appleford, assisted by the Coggeshall vicar,
Rev W J Dampier, and Brown’s brother, the Rev W H
8 Brown’s initiation date is given as 21st January 1868.

9 A candidate, on receiving the Second Degree, is said to
be "passed as a Fellow Craft." It alludes to his having passed
through the porch to the Middle Chamber of the Temple, the
place in which Fellow-Crafts received their wages.
10 ‘Raised’ is an expressive term used to designate the
reception of the candidate into the third or sublime degree
of a Master Mason, and alludes both to a part of the ceremo-
ny and to our faith in the glorious morn of the resurrection,
when our bodies will rise, and become as incorruptible as our
souls.
11 The Master of the lodge is the most senior office held
within a lodge.
12 The Office of Grand Steward dates from 1735.
13 Emily Appleford was the second daughter of William and
Bildah Appleford from The Abbey, Coggeshall, Essex.
14 Translated as ‘St Peter in chains’
15 Ipswich Journal 30 January 1869

Brown. The Ipswich Journal of Saturday, 30th January
1869 carried notice of the wedding:
BROWN–APPLEFORD — 21st inst, at Coggeshall

Church, by the Rev. Wm. Appleford, brother of the bride,
assisted by the Rev. W. H. Brown, brother of the bride-
groom, and the Rev. W. J. Dampier, vicar, Frederick
Gordon Brown, Esq., M.R.C.S., No.16 Finsbury Circus, to Ipswich Journal 30 January, 1869, announcing the marriage
of Frederick and Emily Brown.
Emily, second daughter of William Appleford, Esq.,The
Abbey, Coggeshall.
Early Career
The 1871 census curiously shows 29-year-old Dr Brown living with Emily at 29 St Mary’s Axe in the City of London.
We are unsure why the couple moved. It was obviously a temporary switch of residences because at the time of the
next census in 1881 Dr Brown but not his wife were back in Finsbury Circus (see below). We can only speculate as
to the reasons for the couple’s change of abode. Possibly the temporary residence at 29 St Mary’s Axe was due to
renovation work to the Finsbury Circus surgery and residence – or that they wished to try life in a new home which
did not work out satisfactorily. Another interesting and possibly related fact is that Brown owned the properties at
Nos. 6, 7 and 7a Eldon Street16, Shoreditch. Curiously, No. 6 Eldon Street was the very same address where City PC
Edward Watkins, the constable who found fourth canonical Ripper victim Catherine Eddowes’ body in the early morn-
ing hours of 30th September 1888, was living with his family in 1881. Therefore it appears conceivable that Dr Brown
was the Watkins’ landlord in 1881. It also leads us to speculate whether Brown owned various properties and rent-
ed them out to City Police personnel and/or civilians or businesses. An intriguing idea.
As reported in his obituary, Brown was a former President of the Hunterian Society. The British Medical Journal
of 5th February 1876 shows Brown listed as a Secretary. The Hunterian Society was formed by Dr William Cooke and
Dr Thomas Arminger and named in honour of Dr John Hunter (1728–1793), renowned as the ‘Founder of Scientific
Surgery’. The Society’s mission was to pursue medical knowledge via discussion and debate over dinners held on reg-
ular meeting dates.
16 Building proposals 1889 –London Metropolitan Archives. Here Brown is listed as owning No 26 Eldon Street however it actually reads
-Eldon Street (No 26; previously 6 North Buildings, Eldon Street). Therefore No 26 used to be Watkins home of No 6.
1881 Census
No 16 to 18, Finsbury Circus, 2010. This part of Finsbury Circus is not original and the buildings have been replaced since Brown’s time —
Photograph Rob Clack.
Brown served as a Medical Officer for the City of London Union17 from around 1876 onward. It was as a Union
Medical Officer that, on Tuesday, 20th March 1877, Brown attended an inquiry into the execution of the Artisan
Dwellings Act18 in the Petticoat Lane area. Also attending the inquiry at Guildhall with Brown was Dr William
Sedgewick Saunders19, another physician to be involved in the Eddowes case. Sedgewick Saunders stated that he had
‘paid great attention to the localities in question, and on many occasion inspected Petticoat Lane’20. He then listed
numerous figures regarding death rates. Brown’s contribution was to describe how typhoid and typhus had been preva-
lent in Petticoat Square and pointed out that the children there suffered not only from those diseases directly but
that their recoveries were long and difficult. Finally, testimony was given by a Dr Sequeira, presumably Dr Henry Little
Sequeira, surgeon of 1 Jewry Street, Aldgate, the father of Dr George William Sequeira, the first medical man to
attend the body of Eddowes. Dr Sequeira, like his son a Sephardic Jew, pointed out that the area was unhealthy and
he expressed his belief that executing the act would benefit the district.
17 The City of London Poor Union was formed on 30th March 1834 — See the following link for more information.
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~peter/workhouse/CityOfLondon/
18 The Artisan Dwellings Act of 1875 was introduced so local authorities could buy and demolish slum houses and replace them with mod-
ern, healthy housing. However there was often severe opposition to such proposals. Therefore inquiries were held and the powers granted
were permissive rather than compulsory.
19 Dr William Sedgewick Saunders was the Medical Officer of Health and Public Analyst to the Commission of Sewers and the City of
London. He was later present at the Catherine Eddowes Post mortem which was conducted by Brown, along with Dr Sequeria. He also
attended the Eddowes inquest and gave evidence.
20 The Times – Wednesday 21st March 1877

The 1881 census shows Brown was back at 16
Finsbury Circus. As we indicated earlier, in this cen-
sus, curiously, Emily is not listed with him at this
address. She is shown instead as living with a Dr Alfred
Jones and his wife Jane at The Grange, Hackbridge
not far from Croydon. Emily is listed as a ‘Surgeon’s
wife’. It occurs to us that there might have been a
professional reason Emily was at that address at the
time of the 1881 census. It is worth noting that Dr
Jones’ grandparent, 78-year-old Emma, was also liv-
ing at that address and may have needed attention
which might explain Mrs Brown’s presence at The
Grange. Or else could the separation of Dr Brown and
his wife indicate some unhappiness in the marriage?
Shown as residing with Dr Brown at 16 Finsbury
Circus were his elder sister, Frances M (born 1835),
along with several servants — Jane Lenton, age 21
(Cook, Domestic Servant); Alice Smith, age 23
(Housemaid); and Mary C Arnold, age 13, listed as a
Servant but also as a Scholar21.
We are not certain as to the exact date Brown
was appointed Surgeon to the City of London Police
Force. However, it must have been prior to August
1885 because Brown was called to examine a 14-year-
old girl by the name of Beatrice Weatherby, no doubt
in his capacity as Police Surgeon due to the fact that
the case went to court. It would seem that the girl
was a victim of a serious sexual assault by a ‘keeper
of a Doctors shop’ in Fetters Lane of the name of John
William Caulbert22. Brown examined the girl and
Bishopsgate Police Station, circa 1866.
established that an offence had indeed taken place.
He was also cross examined at a hearing held later in the month to establish whether the girl’s ‘appearance’ could
have been the result of any other cause.
Jack the Ripper
Just after 2.00 am, on the cold damp Sunday morning that greeted the 30th September 1888, Brown was woken
from his bed at 16 Finsbury Circus by a Police Constable sent from Bishopsgate Police Station. The Constable informed
him that a body of a woman had been found in Mitre Square, Aldgate and his presence was required. Brown timed
his arrival in the Square at precisely 2.18 am. In the dark southwest corner he was shown the body of Catherine
21 Mary Arnold, due to her age, may have attended School as well as carrying out domestic chores in-between her schooling.
22 There was some debate at the hearing as to if Caulbert was a Doctor or not. It was established by the Chief Clerk Douglas that Detective
Eagle had made no enquiries into Caulbert’s qualification. Magistrate Cowan suggested to Eagle that he had better find out so that he could
provide an answer to this query at trial. Caulbert applied for bail but Cowan declined, resulting in the defendant being taken into custody
to await trial.

Eddowes. She was lying on her back. He proceeded to examine
her. The testimony of that examination was presented to Coroner
Samuel Langham, the jury and those present by Brown during the
inquest on Catherine Eddowes on Thursday, 4th October 1888.
Brown stated that23:
It [the body] was lying in the position described by

Watkins24, on its back, the head turned to the left shoulder, the
arms by the side of the body, as if they had fallen there. Both
palms were upwards, the fingers slightly bent. A thimble was
lying near. The clothes were drawn up as far as the abdomen, the
thighs were naked, the left leg extended in a line with the body,
the abdomen was exposed, right leg bent at the thigh and knee.
The bonnet was at the back of the head – great disfigurement of
the face, the throat was cut across, below the cut was a necker-
chief. The upper part of the dress was pulled open a little way.
The abdomen was all exposed. The intestines were drawn out to
Dr George Bagster Phillips
a large extent and placed over the right shoulder – they were
smeared over with some feculent matter. A piece of about two feet was quite detached from the body and placed
between the left arm and body.
By Mr. Crawford (City Solicitor): By ‘placed’, do you mean put there by design?
Brown: Yes.
The lobe and auricle of the right ear was cut obliquely through. There was a quantity of clotted blood on the
pavement on the left side of the neck round the shoulder and upper part of arm, and fluid blood-coloured serum
which had flowed under the neck to the right shoulder — the pavement sloping in that direction. Body was quite
warm — no death stiffening had taken place. The body had been there only a few minutes.
Brown’s response to a question put forward by Mr. Crawford: Certainly 30 or 40 minutes.

We looked for superficial bruises and saw none. No blood on the skin of the abdomen or secretion of any kind on
the thighs. No spurting of blood on the bricks or pavement around. No marks of blood below the middle of the body.
Brown’s response to a question put forward by Mr. Crawford: There was no blood on the front of the clothes.
There was not a speck of blood on the front of the jacket.
Several buttons were found in the clotted blood after the body was removed. There was no blood on the front
of the clothes. There were no traces of recent connection. When the body arrived at Golden Lane25 some of the
blood was dispersed through the removal of the body to the mortuary. The clothes were taken off carefully from
the body, a piece of deceased’s ear dropped from the clothing.
23 The following has been taken from The Times report of the Eddowes Inquest dated October 5th 1888 and the Corporation of London
Record Office Inquest papers (No 135).
24 City of London PC 881 Edward Watkins discovered Catherine Eddowes body whilst executing his beat duties.
25 Golden Lane Mortuary, where Eddowes body was transferred to from Mitre Square.

By the Coroner: Before we removed
the body Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I
wished him to see the wounds, he having
been engaged in a case of a similar kind
previously. He saw the body at the mortu-
ary. The clothes were removed from the
deceased carefully. I made a post-mortem
examination on Sunday afternoon. There
was a bruise on the back of the left hand,
and one on the right shin, but this had
nothing to do with the crime. There were
no bruises on the elbows or the back of
the head. The face was very much muti-
lated, the eyelids, the nose, the jaw, the
cheeks, the lips, and the mouth all bore
cuts. There were abrasions under the left
ear. The throat was cut across to the
Sketch made by Frederick Foster of Catherine Eddowes as she was found.
extent of six or seven inches.
The post mortem examination on Eddowes body was undertaken at 2.30 pm on Sunday, 30th September 1888 at
Golden Lane Mortuary. In attendance with Dr Brown were Drs George Bagster Phillips26, George William Sequeira27
and William Sedgewick Saunders28. Brown describes the course of events and injuries as follows:
I made a post mortem examination at half past two on Sunday afternoon. The temperature of the room was 55
degrees. Rigor mortis was well marked. After careful washing of the left hand a recent bruise, the size of a six-
pence, was discovered on the back of the hand between the thumb and first finger. A few small bruises on right
shin of older date. The hands and arms were bronzed. No bruises on the scalp, the back of the body or the elbows.
The face was very much mutilated. There was a cut about a quarter of an inch through the lower left eyelid,
dividing the structures completely through. The upper eyelid on that side, there was a scratch through the skin on
the left upper eyelid, near to the angle of the nose. The right eyelid was cut through to about half an inch. There
was a deep cut over the bridge of the nose, extending from the left border of the nasal bone down near to the
angle of the jaw on the right side of the cheek. This cut went into the bone and divided all the structures of the
cheek except the mucous membrane of the mouth.
The tip of the nose was quite detached from the nose by an oblique cut from the bottom of the nasal bone to
where the wings of the nose join on to the face. A cut from this divided the upper lip and extended through the
substance of the gum over the right upper lateral incisor tooth. About half an inch from the top of the nose was
another oblique cut. There was a cut on the right angle of the mouth as if the cut of a point of a knife. The cut
extended an inch and a half, parallel with lower lip.
26 Dr George Bagster Phillips (1834-97) was H (Whitechapel) Division Surgeon, the equivalent to Brown. He had attended the scenes of
the Annie Chapman and Elizabeth Stride murders as well as their Post Mortems. He was later to attend the Mary Kelly murder scene and
Post Mortem.
27 Dr George William Sequeira (1859-1926) was the first medical officer on the scene at Catherine Eddowes murder in Mitre Square. He
had been summoned by City PC Frederick Holland who was assisting Watkins in the immediate aftermath of the latters discovery of Eddowes.
28 Dr William Sedgewick Saunders. As mentioned earlier, Sedgewick Saunders was the City of Londons Medical Officer of Health and Analyst.

There was on each side of cheek a cut which peeled up
the skin, forming a triangular flap about an inch and a half.
On the left cheek there were two abrasions of the
epithelium — under the left ear.
The throat was cut across to the extent of about six or
seven inches. A superficial cut commenced about an inch
and a half below the lobe below (and about two and a half
inches below ‘and behind) the left ear, and extended
across the throat to about three inches below the lobe of
right ear. The big muscle across the throat was divided
through on the left side. The large vessels on the left side
of the neck were severed. The larynx was severed below
the vocal chord. All the deep structures were severed to
the bone, the knife marking intervertebral cartilages. The
sheath of the vessels on the right side was just opened.
The carotid artery had a fine hole opening. The internal
jugular vein was opened an inch and a half — not divided.
The blood vessels contained clot. All these injuries
were performed by a sharp instrument like a knife, and
pointed. The cause of death was haemorrhage from the
left common carotid artery. The death was immediate and
the mutilations were inflicted after death.
We examined the abdomen. The front walls were laid
open from the breast bone to the pubes. The cut com-
menced opposite the enciform cartilage, in the centre of Portrait of Dr George W Sequeira by Horace Sequeira, date unknown.
the body. The incision went upwards, not penetrating the
skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the enciform cartilage, and being gristle we could tell the knife
must have cut obliquely at the expense of the front surface of that cartilage. It (the knife) was held so that the
point was towards the left side and the handle towards the right. Behind this, the liver was stabbed as if by the
point of a sharp instrument. Below this was another incision into the liver of about two and a half inches, and below
this the left lobe of the liver was slit through by a vertical cut. Two cuts were shewn by a jagging of the skin on
the left side. The abdominal walls were divided in the middle line to within a quarter of an inch of the navel. The
cut then took a horizontal course for two inches and a half towards right side. It then divided round the navel on
the left side, and made a parallel incision to the former horizontal incision, leaving the navel on a tongue of skin.
Attached to the navel was two and a half inches of the lower part of the rectus muscle on the left side of the
abdomen. The incision then took an oblique direction to the right and was shelving. The incision went down the
right side of the vagina and rectum for half an inch behind the rectum.
There was a stab of about an inch on the left groin. This was done by a pointed instrument. Below this was a
cut of three inches going through all tissues making a wound of the peritoneum [sc. perineum] about the same
extent. An inch below the crease of the thigh was a cut extending from the anterior spine of the ilium obliquely
down the inner side of the left thigh and separating the left labium, forming a flap of skin up to the groin. The
left rectus muscle was not detached.
There was a flap of skin formed from the right thigh, attaching the right labium, and extending up to the spine
of the ilium. The muscles on the right side inserted into the frontal ligaments were cut through.

The skin was retracted through the whole of the cut in the abdomen, but the vessels were not clotted. Nor had
there been any appreciable bleeding from the vessels. I draw the conclusion that the cut was made after death,
and there would not be much blood on the murderer. The cut was made by some one on right side of body, kneel-
ing below the middle of the body.
I removed the content of the stomach and placed it in a jar for further examination. There seemed very little
in it in the way of food or fluid, but from the cut end partly digested farinaceous food escaped. The intestines had
been detached to a large extent from the mesentery. About two feet of the colon was cut away. The sigmoid flex-
ure was invaginated into the rectum very tightly.
Right kidney pale, bloodless, with slight congestion of the base of the pyramids. There was a cut from the upper
part of the slit on the under surface of the liver to the left side, and another cut at right angles to this, which were
about an inch and a half deep and two and a half inches long. Liver itself was healthy. The gall bladder contained
bile. The pancreas was cut, but not through, on the left side of the spinal column. Three and a half inches of the
lower border of the spleen by half an inch was attached only to the peritoneum. The peritoneal lining was cut
through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed. The left renal artery was cut through.
I should say that someone who knew the position of the kidney must have done it.
The lining membrane over the uterus was cut through. The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump
of three quarters of an inch. The rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments. The vagina
and cervix of the womb was uninjured.
Ipswich Journal, 5 October, 1888 showing the crowds that gathered at Mitre Square following Catherine’s murder.
The bladder was healthy and uninjured, and contained three or four ounces of water. There was a tongue-like
cut through the anterior wall of the abdominal aorta. The other organs were healthy. There were no indications of
connexion.
I believe the wound in the throat was first inflicted. I believe she must have been lying on the ground. The
wounds on the face and abdomen prove that they were inflicted by a sharp pointed knife, and that in the abdomen
by one six inches long. I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the positions
of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. The parts removed would be of no use for
any professional purpose. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know
where it was placed. Such a knowledge might be possessed by some one in the habit of cutting up animals.
I think the perpetrator of this act had sufficient time, or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids. It would
take at least five minutes.
I cannot assign any reason for the parts being taken away. I feel sure there was no struggle. I believe it was the
act of one person.
The throat had been so instantly severed that no noise could have been emitted. I should not expect much blood
to have been found on the person who had inflicted these wounds. The wounds could not have been self-inflicted.
Lloyds Weekly, 7 October, 1888 showing Eddowes’ inquest

My attention was called to the apron. It was the corner of the apron, with a string attached. The blood spots
were of recent origin. I have seen the portion of an apron produced by Dr Phillips and stated to have been found
in Goulston Street. It is impossible to say it is human blood. I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of
material on it which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have, the seams of the borders of the two actually
corresponding. Some blood and, apparently, faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulston Street. I
believe the wounds on the face to have been done to disfigure the corpse.
Coroner: Can you tell us what was the cause of death?

Brown: The cause of death was haemorrhage from the throat. Death must have been immediate.
Mr. Crawford: I understand that you found certain portions of the body removed?
Brown: Yes. The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out.
Both these organs were absent, and have not been found.
Coroner: Have you any opinion as to what position the woman was in when the wounds were inflicted?
Brown: In my opinion the woman must have been lying down. The way in which the kidney was cut out showed
that it was done by somebody who knew what he was about.
Coroner: Does the nature of the wounds lead you to any conclusion as to the instrument that was used?
Brown: It must have been a sharp-pointed knife, and I should say at least 6 in. long.
Coroner: Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill?
Brown: He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to
remove them.
Coroner: Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes?
Brown: None whatever.
Coroner: Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge?
Brown: It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being
covered by a membrane.
Coroner: Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals?
Brown: Yes.
Coroner: Have you been able to form any opinion as to whether the perpetrator of this act was disturbed?
Brown: I think he had sufficient time, but it was in all probability done in a hurry.
Coroner: How long would it take to make the wounds?
Brown: It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.
Coroner: Can you, as a professional man, ascribe any reason for the taking away of the parts you have mentioned?
Brown: I cannot give any reason whatever.
Coroner: Have you any doubt in your own mind whether there was a struggle?
Brown: I feel sure there was no struggle. I see no reason to doubt that it was the work of one man.
Coroner: Would any noise be heard, do you think?
Brown: I presume the throat was instantly severed, in which case there would not be time to emit any sound.
Coroner: Does it surprise you that no sound was heard?
Brown: No.
Coroner: Would you expect to find much blood on the person inflicting these wounds?
Brown: No, I should not. I should say that the abdominal wounds were inflicted by a person kneeling at the right
side of the body. The wounds could not possibly have been self-inflicted.
Coroner: Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street?
Brown: Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still
attached by the strings to the body.

Coroner: Have you formed any opinion as to the motive for the mutilation of the face?
Brown: It was to disfigure the corpse, I should imagine.
A Juror: Was there any evidence of a drug having been used?
Brown: I have not examined the stomach as to that. The contents of the stomach have been preserved for analysis29.
Coroner Langham adjourned the inquest for a week. On Thursday, 11th October 1888, the hearing was resumed.
Again, Dr Brown was in attendance and was, in fact, recalled to answer a query from City of London Solicitor Henry
Crawford.
Crawford asked, ‘The theory has been put forward that it is possible for the deceased to have been taken to Mitre
square after her murder. What is your opinion about that?’
Brown replied, ‘I think there is no doubt on the point. The blood at the left side of the deceased was clotted,
and must have flowed from her at the time of the injury to the throat. I do not believe the deceased moved in the
slightest way after her throat was cut.’
At the end of the Eddowes inquest, the rather unsurprising verdict of ‘wilful murder by some person unknown’
was rendered by the jury.
The Eddowes case was to be far from Brown’s only involvement with the Whitechapel Murders. He was called to
Dorset Street, Spitalfields, on 9th November 1888 to assist30 Dr George Bagster Phillips at the Mary Jane Kelly mur-
der scene. After Alice MacKenzie was murdered 17th July 1889 in Castle Alley, Spitalfields, Dr Brown attended the
post mortem on the victim at his own request31. The post mortem on the Castle Alley victim was conducted by Dr
Phillips assisted by Dr Brown. Phillips stated at the MacKenzie inquest that Brown concurred with his findings32. On
11th September 1889, Dr Brown also attended the post mortem of the torso found in an archway in Pinchin Street,
St George’s-in-the-East, along with Drs Phillips and Charles A Hebbert.
An Interesting Report
On 10th November 1888, the day after Mary Jane Kelly’s murder, the British Medical Journal published a report
of the meeting of the Metropolitan Police Surgeons’ Association held the previous Wednesday. The piece might pro-
vide us with a clue why Brown attended so many murder scenes and post mortems during this period. It reads:
METROPOLITAN POLICE SURGEONS’ ASSOCIATION.
The first annual meeting of the recently formed Association of Police Surgeons was held on Wednesday after-
noon, followed by a dinner under the presidency of Mr. McKellar [sic], chief surgeon of the Metropolitan Police
Force. The President was supported by Sir Charles Warren (Commissioner of Police), Mr. Ernest Hart, Dr. Gordon
Brown (Surgeon to the City Police), Mr. Phillips (Treasurer), Sir Thomas Crawford (Director-General A.M.D.), Mr T.
Holmes (late Chief Surgeon), Dr. R. McDonald, M.P., Mr. Nelson Hardy, and Dr. Waters (Honorary Secretaries). The
vice-chairs were occupied by the Vice-Presidents, Mr. Bond and Mr. Buckle. A large number of divisional surgeons
from all parts of the metropolis were present. Mr. McKellar [sic] dwelt on the great advantages which had already
resulted in the medical charge of the police, and in the humane and efficient performance of the duties of the divi-
sional surgeon from the opportunities of conference which the formation of this Association had afforded. Among
other matters he referred to the improvements which had been effected in the direction of preventing the use of
29 The stomach contents were analysed by Dr Sedgewick Saunders who declared that there were no traces of poison in those contents.
30 Along with Drs Thomas Bond and J R Gabe.
31 Brown also attended the scene in Castle Alley along with Dr. Phillips, and view MacKenzie in situ.
32 Phillip’s findings into the Alice MacKenzie murder can be found in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook (Evans & Skinner), Chapter
28, page 505.

public vehicles for infectious cases, and the substitution of ambulances: the better means of obtaining isolation for
contagious cases occurring among the police force, and the improved sanitation and general care for the health of
the men of the force. He paid warm tribute to the uniform kindness and consideration with which every suggestion
put before Sir Charles Warren had been met, and the readiness with which, whenever possible, such suggestions for
the benefit of the men or persons charged had been carried out. Sir Charles Warren, in reply, expressed his great
satisfaction at the formation of this Association; every suggestion, whether general or referring to individual cases,
which the divisional surgeons felt in necessary to make should have the most prompt and favourable consideration,
and he assured the Association from his experience as an army officer that the medical department of such a force
was, perhaps, more powerful than any other for securing the carrying out of their recommendations and the per-
sonal welfare of the force to which they were attached. The subsequent toasts included the “Health of the
President” and of “The Guests;” other toasts having duly honoured, the dinner was brought to a close amid gener-
al congratulations at the satisfactory progress of this young Association, and the excellent prospects for scientific
discussion and administrative efficiency which this new organisation afforded.
There are a number of points to be made regarding this dinner of the Metropolitan Police Surgeons’ Association.
The timing of the meeting is significant. Here we have not only the Divisional Surgeons for the Metropolis but also,
with the presence of Brown, the Surgeon to the City Force. The murders of women within the area of Bethnal Green,
Spitalfields, St George’s-in-the-East and, until then, the City/Whitechapel border, brought many issues to light. Not
only was there grave concern with regard to the murders themselves but also the plight
of the poor of the district was under scrutiny. The Police were well aware that there was
a need for improvement in not only safeguarding their men but also those they arrested,
especially when you consider that Eddowes was
The British Medical Journal on 10 November,
1888, reporting upon the Metropolitan Police in Police custody up until 45 minutes before her
Surgeon’s Association meeting.
death. It would seem that Warren felt the need
for the divisional surgeons to form a group
which not only tackled those issues but commu-
nicated freely amongst themselves. In addition,
whilst there has been speculation that the
Metropolitan and City police forces were not on
the best terms, it would seem from the fact of
this gathering that their surgeons were on good
terms. The formation of this association sup-
ports the idea that the police surgeons of both
orgnaizations had a collegial relationship, and
the presence of other surgeons at both the
crime scenes and mortuaries indicates that
opinion and advice flowed freely between the men.
Another point is that although the Whitechapel Murders are not specifically mentioned in this British Medical
Journal report, it is hard to believe they did not come up during the course of conversation. Commissioner of the
Metropolitan Police, Sir Charles Warren, was present along with Drs Alexander MacKellar, Bond, Phillips and, of course,
Brown. The topic of Jack the Ripper must have been raised at some stage. After all, he may have been the reason
these surgeons were bought together to hold such annual meetings.

1891 Census
The 1891 census showed Brown living at 17 Finsbury Circus33. Emily was back with him at this address. His sis-
ter-in-laws, Ellen and Fanny, were also living with the couple. This must have been somewhat confusing in one sense
because his own sister, also called Fanny, was at this address as well. Along with various domestic servants, his part-
ner, Emily’s brother Dr Stephen Appleford lived at the domicile in what must have been a busy domestic setting.
Brown continued to serve as a Divisional Surgeon to the City of London Police for some considerable time. The
Times of 29th July 1898 reported that Brown was called to attend the scene of a suicide at Moorgate Tube Station.
Journalist George Ward had been a correspondent on the Nile Expedition when he contracted rheumatic fever. He
returned to England in extreme pain and a month after his return, Brown was called to examine his decapitated body
lying on the line near the tunnel entrance. Standing on a brick near the body was an uncorked bottle labelled
‘Poison’. It would seem Mr Ward could stand the pain no longer. Brown examined the bottle and noted it actually
contained morphia. He suggested that Ward had taken the morphia to deaden the pain of what was about to follow.
A verdict of suicide while temporarily insane was returned.
The 1901 census shows the Brown household to have increased dramatically. Still at 17 Finsbury Circus, along with
Brown and Emily was living Ellen and Fanny Appleford (Dr Brown’s sister-in-laws), Agnes Greenhall, Annie Gibbons,
Florence Gibbons (Cousins), Clara Rider (Cook/Domestic), Flora Hills, Annie Clark (both Housemaids) and Bernard Harley
(Page). However, it would appear that Brown’s partner and brother-
Times 29 July, 1898
in-law, Dr Stephen Appleford, had moved out.
Newsworthy Event
In November 1904, Dr Brown was called in a case of ‘Begging

and collecting alms under false pretences’. Cecil Brown-Smith had
been found begging near Bishopsgate, with his ‘head hanging on one
side, his foot dragging behind him and his limbs shaking’34. The
Police calculated that Brown-Smith earned up to £6 a week on aver-
age. However, it would seem that on his way home one evening he
became ‘much better’ and was seen bounding up the station steps.
It was found he lived fairly comfortably with Mrs Brown-Smith, who
was completely unaware of Cecil’s shenanigans. Dr Brown examined
the accused. He stated the prisoner had informed him that he had
33 Some may note that Brown was previously living at 16 Finsbury Circus. There
may have been an error on the census taker’s part or the buildings of 16 and 17
were merged. One other explanation is that the difference in house numbers
may be down to re-numbering of the Circus, which was not uncommon.
34 The Times 9 November 1904.

gotten his injuries after falling from a horse-drawn trap in 1901. Brown
stated that he knew of ‘no instance of paralysis on record consistent
with his symptoms’. Upon hearing Dr Brown’s testimony, Brown-Smith
informed the court that it was now his intention to plea to guilty. This
resulted in the accused receiving a prison sentence of 3 months hard
labour, dependent on whether the prison doctor would deem him fit.
‘Our Society’ Tour of the Murder Sites
The year 1905 saw Dr Brown revisit the Jack the Ripper case of
1888. Samuel Ingleby Oddie, who was to become one of His Majesty’s
Coroners in the County of London, knew Brown very well. Ingleby Oddie
was a member of ‘Our Society’, also known as the Crime Club. The
organisation was set up 2 years previously in 1903 by Henry Brodribb (H
B) Irving35 and Arthur Lambton36. The members of the club were gener-
ally those who excelled in their chosen fields who often had connections
to crime and the investigation of crime, such as pathologists, barristers,
and judges but also included among the membership were writers or lit-
erary critics with an interest in crime literature. The aim was to discuss
various aspects of criminology including well-known crimes of the time.
Thus, in 1905, Ingleby Oddie asked Brown if he would take members of
the Society around the murder sites and discuss the Whitechapel
Murders with them. Brown agreed, and on 19th April a group of men con-
sisting of Brown, Ingelby Oddie, author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle37, creator
of the Sherlock Holmes stories, literary critic and Birmingham University
English Literature Professor John Churton Collins, Dr Crosse of Norwich
Times 9 November, 1904 and three City of London Detectives met at the Police Hospital situated
at Bishopsgate Police Station.
Writing his memoirs in his retirement, S Ingleby Oddie told his readers about the day’s outing in Inquest: A Coroner
Looks Back (London: Hutchinson & Co, 1941). He describes the dense crowds in Petticoat Lane and how he saw a cow
being milked in Whitechapel. In regard to the murder sites, he notes the many exits from Buck’s Row and Mitre Square,
that the passage in 29 Hanbury Street led from street straight to yard, and that the court in Dorset Street ‘seemed
to be a trap’. He describes Miller’s Court in some detail, how you approached the court by ‘a single doorstep from
a grimy covered passage’. The group visited the scene where Alice MacKenzie’s murder occurred in July 1889, Castle
Alley, although the former coroner incorrectly names the location as ‘Castle Street’. It would also appear that he
had his murders mixed up as he goes on to explain about a headless trunk found under a railway arch, an obvious
confusion with the Pinchin Street torso case of September 1889.
35 H B Irving, son of the famous actor Henry Irving, invited 5 friends to dinner at his home on 5th December 1903. The group decided to
hold regular dinners with the object of discussing various aspects of crime and, once the servants had departed, specific cases. Membership
increased and the Society flourished for many years. Members over the years have included George R Sims, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Judge
Henry Elam, P G Wodehouse, Sir Bernard Spilsbury and HRH Prince Phillip.
36 Arthur Lambton was Our Society’s first President. He served in that position for 32 years.
37 Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of the great Fictional Detective Sherlock Holmes, was invited to dinner by the President of Our
Society, Arthur Lambton on 17th July 1904 at the Great Central Hotel. Doyle was eventually made a life member. — Uncollected Sherlock
Holmes.

Professor John Churton Collins (1848–1908) also described the day in the book complied by his son, Lawrence Churton
Collins, Life and Memoirs of John Churton Collins (London & New York: John Lane Publishers, 1912). In the book, the
elder Churton Collins states that Dr Brown’s views about who the Ripper was seemed rather confused or confusing:
[Dr. Brown was] inclined to think that he [the murderer] was or had been a medical student, as he undoubted-
ly had a knowledge of human anatomy, but that he was also a butcher, as mutilations slashing the nose, etc., were
butcher’s cuts38.
Churton Collins then goes on to say that Brown felt that there was no foundation in the ‘maniac doctor theory,
whose body was found in the Thames’39 and that he felt the last two murders were Ripper murders — although we
are not told which murders these were. Churton Collins also tells us that Brown concluded that ‘they [the murders]
still remain an unsolved mystery’.
Another Newsworthy Event
A British Medical Journal report of 26th October 1907 tells us that Brown, along with City of London Police
Commissioner Captain Nott-Bower, the President of the Royal College of Surgeons Mr. Henry Morris, and Messrs
Harrison and Dixon of the Home Office were given a demonstration of a new ‘Motor Ambulance’ at the City Forces
HQ at the Old Jewry. Those present were asked:
. . . to suppose that an accident had happened in Guildhall Yard and a call had been received, which was trans-
mitted to the ambulance station [at St Bartholomew’s Hospital]. They [those present for the demonstration] were
then taken in motor cars to the Guildhall, and by the time they had arrived the ambulance was also there. . . . By
returns furnished to the Commissioner it appears that the average time taken from receipt of call to arrival at hos-
pital is in the case of motor ambulance nine and a half minutes as against twenty-one minutes, the average time
taken by the old hand litters.
The motorised ambulances had actually been introduced to the City some months previous in May 1907, on the
recommendation of Dr George P Ludlam, Superintendent of New York City’s Ambulance service. The motorised vehi-
cles had an instant and positive impact. The British Medical Journal congratulated the City of London authorities on
‘the excellent results they have attained’ and stressed the belief that the Metropolis would receive their own fleet
upon the agreement of the Home Office.
The Final Years

The 1911 census has 69-year-old Brown still listed as a Surgeon to the City of London Police and Corporation of
London, although living at a new location. At some stage, he had moved out to
Chigwell in Essex, a popular place for the retired and semi-retired. Sadly, Dr
Brown’s wife Emily had passed away by this point, as Brown is listed as a wid-
ower. However, his sister-in-laws, Fanny and Ellen, were still present to keep
him company along with his two nieces, Hilda Sett, age 26, and Beatrice Brown,
age 18. Housemaids Emily Scott and Louisa Noble and Cook Sophia Carter are
also listed as residing in the household. As with all 1911 census returns, a note
of children, if any, was made. For Dr Brown, the entry simply reads ‘none’.
By September 1914, Brown had retired. However, in order to release
younger men for the war service he took on various medical duties. On 15
January 1928, Frederick Gordon Brown passed away at the age of 85.
Brown’s obituary in the British Medical Journal
38 It must be noted here that these are the words of Churton Collins and there is no evidence supporting Brown saying them to him.
39 An obvious reference to Montague Druitt.

The Man in the White Apron
Since early 2009 we have been searching for information with regards to our City Beat series of articles for
Ripperologist magazine, and in particular information on a specific group photograph of City Policemen taken some
years prior to 1888. It was during this search that we sought the advice of noted Ripperologist Donald Rumbelow.
Don suggested we tried looking through the Guildhall Museum collection of City Police photographs. Alas we could
not locate the specific photograph we sought but we did manage to obtain copies of numerous other photos taken
around that era. A few of the photos were clearly marked and were pictures of Constables taken during the
Coronation of Edward VII in 1902. Others were portraits of individual, unidentified Constables which included no
dates. Yet, judging by their uniforms, the photos were of a similar period.
There was one group photo which stood out. Upon the back of this photo was written the words, ‘City Police
Constables wearing Diamond Jubilee medals. Back yard of Moor Lane Police Stn. c 1899. Photo by Mansion House
Photog. Co. 16 & 17 Poultry (see also Moor Lane).’
The photo shows two rows of Constables. The back row, which consists of 9 men, are all standing. The front 6
men are seated upon chairs. Most of the men are wearing City of London Police Constable uniforms apart from 3.
The 2 men flanking the front row are in plain clothes and are most likely Inspectors. The last man, on the extreme
left of the back row (as we view it) is wearing a white shirt, dark trousers and shoes and a very long white apron.
And it is this man we ask you to focus on.
One suggestion was that this man was a cook. However this didn’t make sense. We have seen many Police group
photographs and we have never come across a group shot that has included a cook. We cannot exclude this possibil-
ity, but we feel it is highly unlikely that such a person would appear on what was after all an important commemo-
rative photograph for the City Police force. We then took a more logical approach. Who would likely appear in a
Police group shot, an important Police group photograph?
The group photo taken at the rear of Moor Lane Police station, 1899.
Above: Moor Lane Police Station 1899
Below right:The back of the photograph shown on the previous page.
Below left: Moor Lane St 1873 showing the location of where the photograph on the previous page was taken.

It was during a late night exchange of messages, which continued into the next few days, that the identity of
this person was most likely established. Firstly we felt that this person to appear on such a photo, had to hold a posi-
tion of importance. As mentioned, we feel a cook would not appear in a Jubilee photo, else why not include the
cleaner also? Secondly, the man is wearing an apron. We started to think of other trades, connected to the Police
Force, which required the use of an apron. The most likely occupation that we could think of was either a Doctor or
Surgeon. It was at this stage that a connection as to who this person may be was made. The man’s physical descrip-
tion was then considered and comparisons were made with sketches taken at the time of Catherine Eddowes inquest.
The only Doctor connected to the City of London Police force at that moment in time (both in 1888 and 1890s) who
had reason to be at Moor Lane Police Station, who was important enough to appear on a group photo commemorat-
ing the Jubilee of Queen Victoria and, more importantly, who matches the description given in sketches, was Doctor
Frederick Gordon Brown.
We thus closely compared a sketch of Brown from The Penny Illustrated Paper of 13th October 1888, drawn at
the time of Eddowes inquest, with the Moor Lane photo. The likeness between the men (or man) in the two illustra-
tions is extremely close. The rotund face with double chin, heavy eyelids, and moustache are very similar. The ear
shape is close also. Although there is some dissimilarity in the hair between the two images, differences in hair style
in a single individual occur over the years. As mentioned, for the man to be included in the Jubilee photograph, we
conclude that the long white apron indicates that he was a Doctor or Surgeon. The fact that his wedding ring is miss-
ing and the sleeves are rolled up hints that he was getting prepared for work, and might indicate, moreover, that
the arrangements to take the photograph were not as pre-planned as we had at first believed.
The location of the photo at Moor Lane Police Station is another indicator. Moor Lane was a City of London Police
Station but as far as we are aware it held no hospital. However, Moor Lane did have Police cells and, as we have
stated, Brown often examined both victims of crimes and prisoners alike. Here, the Cecil Brown-Smith case discussed
earlier springs to mind. It was known for Doctors to conduct these examinations at Police Stations. Having studied
the background of the photo, and cross-referenced it with a large-scale Ordnance Survey map from 1873, we have
even pinpointed the location of where the photo was taken, in Moor Lane Station Yard.
Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown? The Penny Illustrated Paper sketch of Brown — 13 October, 1888

Like the photograph of Police Constable George H Hutt, we took this image along to the October 2009 Jack the
Ripper Conference held at the King’s Stores, Widegate Street, London. Again, as with the Hutt image, we showed
the photo to various knowledgeable Ripperologists including Paul Begg, Richard Jones, John Bennett, Robert
McLaughlin and Adam Wood. We did not initially inform them who we thought the man in the apron was and asked
if they could identify him. Most were puzzled until we produced the sketch from The Penny Illustrated Paper. It was
at this stage that all those consulted made the connection between the image and the sketch.
On a cold day in November 2009 we visited notable Ripperologist Stewart P Evans at his home in Cambridgeshire.
Stewart was the first person we contacted when we found the image. His initial reaction was one of extreme cau-
tion. This was understandable and quite welcome to us because we were and are well aware of Stewart’s pedigree
as a former Suffolk police constable and a noted authority in the field of Ripper studies. That day, Stewart viewed
a copy of the Moor Lane photograph in his study. Although he admitted a likeness between the man in the photo-
graph and the sketch from The Penny Illustrated Paper, he indicated to us that he would not at that moment be pre-
pared to commit and state that in his opinion the photograph showed Dr Frederick Gordon Brown.
And that is where we stand. We understand and respect Stewart’s view, and it would be unforgivable of us to
state with certainty that it is the first known photograph of the Doctor who examined Catherine Eddowes. However,
we are of the strong opinion that the gentleman you see in this photo, wearing the large white apron, is Dr Frederick
Gordon Brown.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the help and opinions of Debra Arif, Paul Begg, John Bennett, Diane
Clements (Director of the Library and Museum of Freemasonry), Richard Jones, Robert MacLaughlin, Frances Pattman
(Archives Assistant at King's College London) and Mark Ripper. Special thanks go to Adam Wood for his encourage-
ment and patience, to Stewart P Evans for his knowledge and kindness and to his wife Rosie Evans for her hospital-
ity and delicious treacle sponge. A final word of gratitude must go to Donald Rumbelow. Without Mr Rumbelow’s sug-
gestion, we may never had come across the Moor Lane Police Station Jubilee photograph that conceivably shows Dr
Frederick Gordon Brown.
Neil Bell has been interested in the Whitechapel murders for the last 26 years and had arti-
cles published in Ripperologist, most notably with Jake Luukanen, and Ripperologist’s book
compilation, Ripperology.
He was a speaker at the 2007 conference in Wolverhampton and has appeared as a guest on
Rippercast, the Podcast on the Jack the Ripper Murders.
Robert Clack is from Surrey, England. He has been studying the Whitechapel Murders for
over 20 years. He is the author of 'Death in the Lodging House' a look at the murder of Mary
Ann Austin in 1901. He is the co-author of the book The London of Jack the Ripper: Then
and Now.

George William Foote,
Flowers of Free Thought, and ‘Jehovah the Ripper’
By Christopher T. George
Following the horrific 9 November 1888 murder and mutilation of Mary Jane Kelly in Miller’s
Court, Spitalfields, an English intellectual and atheist, interpreting the murder as typical of the
bloody handiwork of God, wrote an essay entitled ‘Jehovah the Ripper’1. The author,
Freethinker George William Foote (1850–1915), later republished his essay in the second volume
of his collected essays, Flowers of Free Thought, which appeared in 1894. Here we present the
article in full unedited by us. We follow up the essay itself with a précis of the life of the con-
troversial Mr Foote, who is probably most famous for having been slapped in prison for blasphe-
my2 and then some discussion of the implications of his anti-religious tract, ‘Jehovah the
Ripper’.
‘Jehovah the Ripper’ by George William Foote
The Whitechapel monster has once more startled and horrified Freethinker George William Foote (1850–1915).
London, and again he has left absolutely no clue to his identity. He is
the mystery of mysteries. He comes and goes like a ghost. Murder
marks his appearance, but that is all we know of him. The rest is
silence. The police, the vigilance societies, and the private detectives
are all baffled. They can only stare at each other in blind dismay, as
helpless as the poor victims of the fiend’s performances. All sorts of
theories are started, but they are all in the air—the wild conjectures of
irresponsible imaginations. All sorts of stories are afloat, but they con-
tradict each other. As for descriptions of the monster, it is easy enough
to say that the police have advertised for nine or ten “wanted” gentle-
men, of various heights, dimensions, colors, and costumes, who are all
the very same person.
1 George William Foote, ‘Jehovah the Ripper’ [November 1888] in Flowers of Free
Thought, Volume 2 by George William Foote. London: R Forder, 1894, p. 230. Book
available in full at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30203/30203-h/30203-h.htm.
2 ‘G W Foote’ at http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/fbio.htm and ‘George William

Foote’ at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_William_Foote. Also see David Nash,
‘Blasphemy in Victorian Britain? Foote and the Freethinker’, History Today, October
1995, Volume 45, Issue 10, Page 13-19. Available on-line at
http://www.historytoday.com/MainArticle.aspx?m=10065&amid=10065.

We have no desire to dabble in murder, nor do we aspire to turn an honest penny by the minute description of
bodily mutilations. But while the Whitechapel atrocities are engaging the public attention, we are tempted to con-
tribute our quota of speculation as to the monster’s identity. We thought of doing so before, but we reflected that
it was perfectly useless while such a pig-headed person as Sir Charles Warren was at the head of the police. Now,
however, that he is gone, and there is a chance of common-sense suggestions being fairly considered, we venture to
propound our theory, in the hope that it will at least be treated on its merits.
Well now, to the point. Our theory is that the Whitechapel murderer is—”Whom?” the reader cries. Wait awhile.
Brace up your nerves for the dread intelligence. The East-end fiend, the Whitechapel devil, the slaughterer and
mutilator of women, is—Jehovah!
“Blasphemous!” is shouted from a million throats. But science is used to such shriekings. We pause till the noise
subsides, and then proceed to point out that our theory fulfils the grand condition of fitting in with all the facts.
The Whitechapel murderer is shrouded in mystery. So is Jehovah. The Whitechapel murderer comes no one knows
whence and goes no one knows whither. So does Jehovah. The Whitechapel murderer appears in different disguises.
So does Jehovah. The Whitechapel murderer’s movements baffle all vigilance. So do Jehovah’s. The Whitechapel mur-
derer comes and goes, appears and disappears, with the celerity and noiselessness of a ghost. So does Jehovah, who
is a ghost. Thus far, then, the similarity is marvellously close, and a prima facie case of identity is established.
It will very likely be objected that Jehovah is incapable of such atrocities. But this is the misconception of igno-
rance or the politeness of hypocrisy. Jehovah has written his autobiography, and on his own confession his murder-
ous exploits were very similar to those of the Whitechapel terror. Appealing to that incontrovertible authority, we
propose to show that he has every disposition to commit these enormities.
According to his own history of himself, Jehovah is passionately fond of bloodshed. The sanguine fluid which
courses in our veins is the only thing that appeases him. “Without shedding of blood,” he tells us through the pen
of St. Paul, “there is no remission” of any debts owing to him. He called on Abraham, his friend, to stick a knife into
his own son. He slew the first-born of every family in Egypt in a single night. He accepted the blood of a young vir-
gin offered him by Jephthah. He slew 50,070 men at Beth-Shemesh for looking into his private trunk. He ordered his
“chosen” friends, a famous set of banditti, to exterminate, men, women, children, and even animals, and to “leave
alive nothing that breatheth.” He massacred 70,000 citizens of Palestine because their king took a census, a social
experiment to which he has a rooted antipathy. He had a house especially built for him, and gave orders that it
should daily be drenched with blood. According to one of his candid friends, Archdeacon Farrar, “the floor must lit-
erally have swum with blood, and under the blaze of Eastern sunlight, the burning of fat and flesh on the large blaz-
ing altar must have been carried on amid heaps of sacrificial foulness—offal and skins and thick smoke and steam-
ing putrescence.” On one occasion, when in a state of murderous frenzy, he cried out, “I will make mine arrows
drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh.”
Jehovah’s passion for bloodshed is proved out of his own mouth. Let us now see his love of mutilation. He gen-
erally did this by proxy, and enjoyed the spectacle without undergoing the trouble. Some of his friends took a gen-
tleman named Adoni-bezek, and “cut off his thumbs and his great toes.” Wishing to kill a certain Eglon, the king of
Moab, he sent an adventurer called Ehud with “a present from Jehovah.” The present turned out to be an eighteen-
inch knife, which Ehud thrust into Eglon’s belly; a part of the body on which the Whitechapel murderer is fond of
experimenting. Jehovah’s friend David, a man after his own heart, mutilated no less than four hundred men, and
gave their foreskins to his wife as a dowry. Incurring Jehovah’s displeasure and wishing to conciliate him, he attacked
certain cities, captured their inhabitants, and cut them in pieces with saws, axes, and harrows.

Jehovah is particularly savage towards females. He cursed a woman for eating an apple, and instead of killing
her on the spot, he determined to torture her every time she became a mother. A friend of his—and we judge peo-
ple by their friends—cut a woman up into twelve pieces, and sent them to various addresses by parcels’ delivery.
Another of his friends, called Menahem, made a raid on a certain territory, and “all the women therein that were
with child he ripped up.” Jehovah himself, being angry with the people of Samaria, promised to slay them with the
sword, dash their infants to pieces, and rip up their pregnant women. No doubt he fulfilled his promise, and he would
scarcely have made it if he had not been accustomed to such atrocities. It appears to us, therefore, that he is fully
entitled to the name of Jehovah the Ripper.
We have not exhausted our evidence. Far more could be adduced, but we hope this will suffice. It may, of course,
be objected that Jehovah has reformed, that he is too old for midnight adventures, that he has lost his savage cun-
ning, and that his son keeps a sharp eye on the aged assassin. But the ruling passion is never really conquered; it is
even, as the proverb says, strong in death. We venture, therefore, to suggest that the Whitechapel murderer is
Jehovah; and although keen eyes may detect a few superficial flaws in our theory—for what theory is perfect till it
is demonstrated?—we protest that it marvellously covers the facts of the case, and is infinitely superior to any other
theory that has hitherto been broached.
The Life and Career of George William Foote
Foote was born in Plymouth, Devon, in the west of England, on 11 January 1850, the son of a customs officer
who died when young Foote was only age four. This was to be one of a number of significant tragedies and other
troubles that would mark his life.
Foote moved to London in 1868. As a youth, he is believed to have already become a Freethinker through read-
ing and independent thought. Once in the capital, he actively sought out and joined the freethought organisations
that were flourishing at the time. In the 1871 census, he is listed as a lodger and ‘Bookseller’s Clerk’ aged 21 living
at 8 Shepperton Cottages, Islington.
Caricature of Northampton Member of Parliament and leading
Foote began to lecture at freethought meetings. He came atheist Charles Bradlaugh in Punch, 10 September 1881, by
Edward Linley Sambourne.
to the attention of the activist atheist and prominent
Freethinker Charles Bradlaugh (1833–1891), who in 1880 was
returned as Member of Parliament for Northampton and served
as MP for that town until his death. Foote began to contribute
articles to Bradlaugh’s National Reformer and gained a reputa-
tion as a leader among Freethinkers. In 1876, he founded his
own magazine, The Secularist, the publication of which only
lasted a short period.
Clearly, G W Foote was moving up in the world. Not only
was he a Freethinker but he gained a reputation as a talented
writer and performer of literary works. Foote began to mingle
with literary and artistic Londoners such as the multi-talented
Rossetti family: the siblings poet Christina Rossetti, painter and
poet Dante Gabriel Rossetti, and writer and art critic William
Michael Rossetti (1829–1919). The latter, in a diary entry of 8
January 1877, noted that Foote was ‘a young man, generally
prepossessing in manner and appearance.’ In the same diary

entry, he noted that Foote was engaged to be married to
another member of the circle, Henriette Mariane Heimann. Age
25 at the time, Miss Heimann was the daughter of Adolf
Heimann, professor of German at University College, London3.
In March 1877, the couple married but the marriage was to
last only around nine months. The new Mrs Foote, apparently
depressed, committed suicide in December by swallowing an
overdose of chloral. Rossetti wrote to American poet Walt
Whitman on 17 December, ‘Within the last 2 or 3 years she has
shown mental excitability of a morbid kind.’ The suicide must
have been a severe blow to Foote. He nonetheless continued with
his pursuits, including his literary performances. In March 1878,
Rossetti noted, ‘We attended one of Foote’s lectures in Langham
Hall—Browning’s Hervé Riel, Shelley’s Skylark, Graveyard Scene
in Hamlet, etc. He is a good elocutionist, and on the whole ranks
among the best reading-declaimers that I know.’4
In the 1881 census, Foote is shown as a widower residing
at 9 South Crescent, St Giles in the Field, where he is listed as
Oil portrait of William Michael Rossetti by Ford Madox Brown, 1856. a boarder and ‘Journalist & Lecturer’. In that year, Foote
founded the atheist mouthpiece The Freethinker, which was to
be his major publishing success and is still published today.
The following year, 1882, G W Foote was charged with blasphemy for having published a number of cartoons in
The Freethinker which were deemed to be sacrilege by English conservatives such as Sir Henry Tyler (1827–1908), MP
for Harwich (1880–1885) and later Great Yarmouth (1885–1892), who sought to close down atheist publications or at
least make it difficult for them to continue publication. For several years, these conservative critics brought actions
against Bradlaugh and Foote and fellow Freethinkers in the courts and, in the case of Bradlaugh, in Parliament itself.
According to David Nash:
The matter reached its climax when Foote deliberately produced a tirade of potentially blasphemous materi-
al in the Christmas 1882 edition of The Freethinker. This considerably surpassed his previous efforts since it con-
tained a depiction of the life of Christ in sixteen cartoon illustrations. Amongst these were comic images of Christ
preaching from a public Inn called ‘The Mount’ and of Christ bewitching the elders of the Temple and rather per-
tinently being ‘run in for blasphemy’5.
The case brings to mind the episode in our day of the Danish cartoons that provoked the ire of Muslims because
they claimed the depiction of Mohammad was insulting to Islam. The Biblical caricatures in The Freethinker were
modelled after a series of earlier French cartoons.
3 William Michael Rossetti and Roger W. Peattie, Selected Letters of William Michael Rossetti. University Park, Pennsylvania: Penn State
Press, 1990, footnote to p. 352.
4 Ibid.
5 Nash, ‘Blasphemy in Victorian Britain? Foote and the Freethinker’, op cit.

Foote’s arrest and trial for blasphemy is discussed in the autobi-
ography of the leading Theosophist Annie Besant (1847–1933), an asso-
ciate of Bradlaugh in the National Secular Society founded in 1866. In
her memoirs, Besant noted Foote’s courage in facing his enemies. But
she also related that Bradlaugh disapproved of publication of the car-
toons because he believed they brought the freethought movement
into disrepute:
The long-continued attempts of Sir Henry Tyler and his friends to

stimulate persecutions for blasphemy at length took practical shape,
and in July, 1882, Mr. Foote, the editor, Mr. Ramsey, the publisher,
and Mr. Whittle, the printer of the Freethinker, were summoned for
blasphemy by Sir Henry Tyler himself. An attempt was made to
involve Mr. Bradlaugh in the proceedings, and the solicitors promised
to drop the case against the editor and printer if Mr. Bradlaugh would
himself sell them some copies of the paper. But however ready Mr.
Bradlaugh had always shown himself to shield his subordinates by tak-
ing his sins on his own shoulders, he saw no reason why he should
Leading Theosophist Annie Besant (1847–1933).
assume responsibility for a paper over which he had no control, and
which was, he thought, by its caricatures, lowering the tone of Freethought advocacy and giving an unnecessary
handle to its foes6.
Foote was found guilty of blasphemy in 1883 and sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment by Justice Sir Ford
North (1830–1913), an ardent Roman Catholic. Foote sarcastically responded to the sentence in a tone consistent
with the mocking tone in his ‘Jehovah’ essay: ‘Thank you, my lord, the sentence is worthy of your creed.’
The Freethinker made much of the prosecution, carrying for issue after issue the banner headline ‘Prosecuted
for Blasphemy’. As the old adage goes, any publicity is good publicity. Besant noted:
I commenced a series of articles on “The Christian Creed; what it is blasphemy to deny,” showing what Christians
must believe under peril of prosecution. Everywhere a tremendous impulse was given to the Freethought movement,
as men awakened to the knowledge that blasphemy laws were not obsolete.
From over the sea came a word of sympathy from the pen of H.P. Blavatsky in the Theosophist. “We prefer Mr.
Foote’s actual position to that of his severe judge. Aye, and were we in his guilty skin, we would feel more proud,
even in the poor editor’s present position, than we would under the wig of Mr. Justice North.”7
In his 1886 book, Prisoner for Blasphemy, Foote reflected on how he had been treated by Justice North and on
a Freethinker cartoon of Moses that was criticised by the judge. The passage is reminiscent of his caustic writing
about the sins of God in ‘Jehovah the Ripper’:
Another illustration was called “A Back View.” It represented Moses enjoying a panoramic view of Jahveh’s “back
parts.” Judge North did his dirty worst to misrepresent this picture, and perhaps it was he who induced the Home
6 Autobiography of Annie Besant at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12085/12085-h/12085-h.htm
7 Ibid.

Secretary to believe that our publication was “obscene.” In reality the obscenity is in the Bible. The writer of
Exodus contemplated sheer nudity, but the Freethinker dressed Jahveh in accordance with the more decent customs
of the age of reason8.
Eventually, on 25 February 1884, Foote was released after his years’ imprisonment from Holloway prison, Besant
tells us, ‘whence he was escorted by a procession a quarter of a mile in length. On the 12th of March he and his fel-
low-prisoners received a magnificent reception and were presented with valuable testimonials at the Hall of
Science’9. While Foote was in jail, as The Daily Inter Ocean of Chicago, Illinois, USA noted in its issue of 30 November
1890, Ms Besant had kept his journal, The Freethinker, alive and well10.
In June 1884, Foote married his second wife, Rosalia Martha Angel. In the 1891 census, the 42-year-old Freethinker
was again listed as a ‘Journalist & Lecturer’ but with an additional notation of ‘Author’. The Foote family were resid-
ing at 497 Caledonian Road, Islington, and besides Foote himself living there were wife Rosalia M, age 28, daughters
Helen B, age 6, Florence P, 3, and son Francis, at the time an infant. The Foote household boasted two domestic ser-
vants, Lucy Guelick (sp) and Kate Hallam, ages 19 and 17, respectively.
In 1896, Foote visited the United States and gave an interview to The Daily Inter Ocean of 17 November. By this
time, he was President of the National Secular Society of England that had been founded in 1862 by Bradlaugh, now
deceased for the past five years. The ‘bête noir of conservative England’, as the newspaper characterised the late
MP and atheist Freethinker, had nominated Foote for the position before his death. Evidently before Bradlaugh’s
demise, their falling out over the publication of the biblical cartoons was long forgotten, and the creed of free
thought once more had cemented their friendship and collegiality. Foote told the reporter about the objectives of
the society:
“We wish to separate the church and state, and to have changed the unjust laws growing out of the present
state of affairs.
“The object of the freethought propaganda is to destroy superstition in general, and the orthodox Christian form
in particular. We wish in its place to teach a different philosophy of life, grounded on purely natural and human con-
siderations.”11
The same Foote household in terms of husband and wife and children is shown in the 1901 census, though now
domiciled at 5 Hungerford Road, Islington. By this time, though, Foote was facing financial difficulties. A notice in
The Times of 9 August 1901 showed that Foote was declared bankrupt. He told the court that he had insufficiency
of capital and losses in connexion with The Freethinker. The statement of affairs showed the enterprise to be near-
ly £600 in debt and to have less than £80 in assets12.
Despite such hard times, Foote continued in the role of President of the National Secular Society until his death
on 17 October 1915. The details of his last illness and death were related in The Freethinker of 31 October by Mr
Chapman Cohen:
8 G W Foote, Prisoner for Blasphemy available at http://www.fullbooks.com/Prisoner-for-Blasphemy2.html
9 Autobiography of Annie Besant op cit.
10 Ibid and ‘Famous Free-Thinkers’, The Daily Inter Ocean, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 30 November 1890.
11 ‘Aim of Free Thought. George William Foote Explains His Propaganda’, The Daily Inter Ocean, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 17 November 1896.
12 Bankruptcy notice on George William Foote in The Times, 9 August 1901.

To me it will always be some consolation that he died as he would have wished – in harness . . . . When I saw
him on the Friday (two days) before his death he said, “I have had another setback, but I am a curious fellow and
may get all right again.” But he looked the fact of death in the face with the same courage and determination that
he faced Judge North many years ago. A few hours before he died he said calmly to those around him, “I am dying.”
And when the end came his head dropped back on the pillow, and with a quiet sigh, as of one falling to sleep, he
passed away13.
What to Make of ‘Jehovah the Ripper’?
I don’t suspect that ‘Jehovah the Ripper’ puts George William Foote in the frame as being the Whitechapel
Murderer. Indeed, as readers will no doubt note, Foote himself explicitly writes in the second paragraph of the arti-
cle, ‘We have no desire to dabble in murder, nor do we aspire to turn an honest penny by the minute description of
bodily mutilations.’
However, it is at least interesting that among numerous Biblical references in the essay, he mentions, in para-
graph 8, ‘Eglon, the king of Moab’, which possibly might tie in with the so-called ‘Moab and Midian’ Jack the Ripper
letter dated 5 October 1888 received by the Central News Agency that make reference to a woman’s torso discov-
ered in the unfinished New Scotland Yard at Whitehall. This letter, students of the Ripper case will recall, is one of
the most curious of the letters allegedly sent by the killer. For some reason, instead of sending the original letter to
Scotland Yard, a transcription was made for the police by CNA reporter Thomas Bulling, thought by some to be him-
self a candidate for having hoaxed the Ripper letters. Bulling sent the letter to Metropolitan Police Chief Constable
Adolphus Williamson on the same day:
Dear Mr Williamson
At 5 minutes to 9 oclock tonight we received the following letter the envelope of which I enclose by which you
will see it is in the same handwriting as the previous communications
“5 Oct 1888
Dear Friend
In the name of God hear me I swear I did not kill the female whose body was found at Whitehall. If she was
an honest woman I will hunt down and destroy her murderer. If she [‘was an honest woman’ deleted] was a whore
God will bless the hand that slew her, for the women of of [sic] Moab and Midian shall die and their blood shall
mingle with the dust. I never harm any others or the Divine power that protects and helps me in my grand work
would quit for ever. Do as I do and the light of glory shall shine upon you. I must get to work tomorrow treble event
this time yes yes three must be ripped. will send you a bit of face by post I promise this dear old Boss. The police
now reckon my work a practical joke well well Jacky’s a very practical joker ha ha ha Keep this back till three are
wiped out and you can show the cold meat
Yours truly
Jack the Ripper”
Yours truly
T.J. Bulling14
13 Obituary note on George William Foote by Chapman Cohen in The Freethinker, 31 October 1915, quoted at Infidel Deathbeds at
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/george_foote/infidel_deathbeds.html#1.32
14 Moab and Midian letter as quoted Casebook: Jack the Ripper Wiki http://wiki.casebook.org/index.php/Moab_&_Midian_Letter

The wording of the letter appears to betray the thinking of a disturbed individual, whether the killer or a hoax-
er, with its crossing out and its several mistakes, particularly the sentence with that Biblical reference to Moab and
Midian: ‘If she [‘was an honest woman’ deleted] was a whore God will bless the hand that slew her, for the women
of of [sic] Moab and Midian shall die and their blood shall mingle with the dust.’
I consulted by e-mail Stewart P Evans, co-author, with Keith Skinner, of the important study of the Ripper let-
ters, Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell (Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing, 2001). Stewart offered the fol-
lowing opinions of Foote and his article with its reference to Moab and how it might relate to the Ripper letter, as
well as provided useful enlightenment on the Biblical story of Moab and Midian:
Victorians were certainly more aware of, and informed upon, the Bible than the majority of people are today
and religious references were more frequent and obscure. The plains of Moab were situated east of the Dead Sea,
on both sides of the Arnon. The inhabitants were called Moabites and the country derived its name from Moab, the
son of Lot, by whose descendants it was conquered when in the possession of the giant race of Emims. They were
severely punished for their treatment of the Israelites and were an idolatrous nation, made the subject of several
prophecies.
Midian, a desert country lying around the eastern branch of the Red Sea, was supposed to have been settled
by the descendants of Midian the fourth son of Abraham. When the children of Israel were encamped in the plains
of Moab, the Midianites were invited by the Moabites to join in the deputation to Balaam to procure his services
to curse the children of Israel.
For their conduct towards the Israelites they were completely subdued and their kings and male population
slain, their cities and fortifications were burnt and all their property with their wives and children brought to the
camp of Israel and there disposed of by Moses and Eleazar.
Eglon, king of the Moabites, held the Israelites in bondage for eighteen years. He formed an alliance with the
Ammonites and Amelekites and took possession of Jericho where he resided and was afterwards assassinated by
Ehud, who delivered the Israelites from oppression. It is interesting to note that Ehud made the dagger he used
expressly for the purpose of killing Eglon, who, like many of his tribe, was left-handed.
I do not see any obvious connection to be made between the Central News letter of 5 October and the refer-
ence by Foote, other than the fact that it is common subject matter. Foote uses it with other biblical examples.
The Whitechapel murders were a major press topic of their time and the references, essays, books and hoaxes
spawned were numerous. In light of all this the Moab reference is not surprising in both the letter and the Foote
article and there is no reason to think that Foote had any knowledge at all of the ‘Moab and Midian’ letter.
Interesting nonetheless15.
Foote’s characterization of Sir Charles Warren as ‘pig-headed’ (paragraph 2) is consistent with his castigation of
literary critics in the Preface to Flowers of Free Thought, Volume 2, as ‘ignoramuses, prigs, bigots, fools, and cow-
ards’. Clearly, as the reader will have already realised, Foote was a man of definite opinions and was no shrinking
violet in speaking out about people or matters with which he disagreed.
I contacted Paul Begg for his opinion of ‘Jehovah the Ripper’ and he replied:
[Foote’s] suggestion that Jehovah was Jack the Ripper is self-evidently tongue-in-cheek. The characterisation
of Warren as ‘pig-headed’ is pretty much in line with contemporary press criticism, but the suggestion that [Warren]
wouldn’t give fair consideration to common-sense suggestions as to the Ripper’s identity is interesting and has
potential ramifications. However, one should be careful as it might be a criticism equally as tongue-in-cheek as
Foote’s theory16.
15 E-mail from Stewart P Evans to the author, 23 February 2010.
16 E-mail from Paul Begg to the author, 2 February 2010.

Stewart Evans was of similar opinion, stating that ‘the piece by Foote is obviously satirical.’17
I am not sure that I entirely agree with Paul Begg that Foote is being ‘tongue-in-cheek’. As Stewart says, the
piece is satirical, but it is very caustic and heavy satire. Foote was clearly absolutely ardent in his detestation of
religion. His use of the Whitechapel Murders to take a swipe at religion represented part of his lifelong campaign
against faith. In many ways, it would appear that Foote was the Bill Maher of his day, Maher, of course, being the
anti-religious American comedian and social critic responsible for the 2008 movie Religulous—which, as with Foote’s
freethinking works, has inspired the ire of believers in our day18. George William Foote’s ‘Jehovah the Ripper’ is
mainly a screed about the bloodiness of God. It is important, I think, as a statement by a key intellectual figure of
the day—even if it would seem to have no direct bearing on the murders as Messrs Begg and Evans advise us.
Interestingly, among Foote’s many writings, ‘Jehovah the Ripper’ was not his only reference to the Ripper. In
the wake of the catastrophic 1891 Mino-Owari, Japan, earthquake, Foote wrote:
[It] will be observed that the favorable or adverse policy of Providence is quite irrespective of human conduct.
There is no moral discrimination. If Grace Darling and Jack the Ripper were travelling by the same train, and it met
with an accident, everybody knows that their chances of death are precisely equal. If there were any difference it
would be in favor of Jack, who seems very careful of his own safety, and would probably take a seat in the least
dangerous part of the train19.
In an article in which Foote slammed Martin Luther, there is another slight reference to the Whitechapel mur-
derer. Toward the end of the piece, the opinionated Freethinker wrote:
Eternal honor to Luther for the heroism which sent him to Worms, and made him exclaim to his dissuaders: “I
will go if there are as many devils in Worms as there are tiles upon the roofs of the houses.” But eternal hatred
and contempt for the Creed which degraded heroes into Jack the Rippers. [Emphasis mine] I say the Creed; for
Christianity cannot be exculpated. Witchcraft, possession, and sexual intercourse between human and superhuman
beings, are distinctly taught in the Bible; and if there were no other indictment of Christianity, the awful massacre
and torture of millions of helpless women and children would suffice to damn it everlastingly20.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Stewart P Evans and Paul Begg for their help with this article. Robert Linford provided the
valuable census and press report information to help chronicle the life of G W Foote.
17 E-mail from Stewart P Evans, op cit.

18 For example, see Tim McNabb, ‘A Review of Bill Maher's Religulous’, American Thinker, 3 October 2008 at http://www.american-
thinker.com/2008/10/a_review_of_bill_mahers_religu.html
19 George William Foote, ‘God in Japan’ from Flowers of Free Thought at
http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/flowers/038godinjapan.htm
20 George William Foote, ‘Luther and the Devil’ from Flowers of Free Thought at
http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/flowers/151luther.htm
Christopher T. George has served as an editor for Ripperologist since 2002 and has been a contributor to
the magazine for the last decade. A past editor of the U.S. Ripper magazine, Ripper Notes, he helped organ-
ize the first American Jack the Ripper convention in Park Ridge, New Jersey, in April 2000.
By profession, Chris is a medical editor in Washington, D.C., and he lives in Baltimore, Maryland, with his
wife Donna and two cats.
Chris will shortly publish what he trusts will prove a useful new guide to the case, A to Z of Jack the Ripper
and the Jews (Loch Raven Press, 2010).

The BBC TV’s Sherlock Holmes
Productions of the Past Decade
By Jonathan Rees
BBC Television produced three Sherlock Holmes-related dramas in the the last decade. They
are: the 2002 adaption of ‘The Hound of the Baskervilles’ starring Richard Roxburgh as Holmes
and Ian Hart as Watson; the 2005 film ‘The Case of the Silk Stocking’ with Rupert Everett as
Holmes and again featuring Ian Hart as Watson; and the 2005 semi-biographical drama ‘The
Strange Case of Sherlock Holmes and Arthur Conan Doyle’ briefly featuring Tim McInnerny as the
iconic detective.
‘The Hound of the Baskervilles’: Roxburgh’s Take
‘The Hound of the Baskervilles’ as aired by the BBC

in 2002 is a retelling of the classic Doyle tale with an
original screenplay by Allan Cubitt (‘Anna Karenina’
and ‘Prime Suspect 2’). While most readers will no
doubt be familiar with Holmes and Watson’s adventure
with a spectral hound on Dartmoor, I shall give a brief
summary of the plot. Holmes is visited by a country
doctor, who tells the private detective of the mysteri-
ous death of his friend and patient Sir Charles
Baskerville and the legend of the hound that cursed his
family and that is involved in the circumstances of
Baskerville’s death. Holmes embarks on the case to Richard Roxburgh and Ian Hart in Hound of the Baskervilles
help protect Sir Charles’s young heir, Sir Henry, from a

devious plot to acquire the family fortune.
This adaption is closer to a retelling of the 1939 film starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce than to Conan
Doyle’s original novel of The Hound of the Baskervilles originally serialised in the Strand Magazine from August 1901
to April 1902, and published that year in book form. Several aspects are also changed from the 1939 film, presum-
ably for dramatic effect.
Roxburgh’s interpretation of Holmes was no doubt intended to play on the distance the character suffers from
the everyday goings-on in society as a result of his considerable intellect and powers of deduction. Regrettably, the
actor fails at this, with his Holmes instead coming across as being bored of all proceedings. It is therefore fortunate
that the plot requires Holmes to be absent for long intervals, with the story focusing on Watson and Sir Henry. The
only convincing part of Roxburgh’s performance is his despair followed by astonished relief when he thinks Sir Henry
has been killed by the Hound. On the whole, this Holmes is dull and lifeless, lacking the energy and obsession of the
stories.

Rupert Everett as Holmes in ‘The Case of the Silk Stocking’
Christmas 2004 saw another BBC Holmes production with screenplay and original script by
Allan Cubitt rather than one based on a Conan Doyle story. ‘The Case of the Silk Stocking’ fea-
tures Rupert Everett as Holmes, accompanied by Ian Hart as Watson. After the body of a young
girl is discovered on the bank of the Thames, Watson tries to involve Holmes in the case. Watson
has left Baker Street to marry an American psychiatrist, much to the disapproval of the great
detective who is wallowing his existence away in drugs and alcohol as he attempts to overcome
the boringness of his life with no cases. Holmes realises the body is of the daughter of a mem-
ber of the English gentry, and that a serial killer is on the loose, striking at the young girls in
the upper echelons of society.
Everett’s Holmes is a cool and composed investigator, using his observations and percep-
tions to investigate crime scenes. He is unfazed and remains focused despite the political pres-
sures felt by the police led by Lestrade and the social pressures and distrac-
tion felt by Watson in arranging his upcoming wedding. Yet Holmes is obvi-
ously startled and disarmed by his first meeting with Jenny, Watson’s fiancé,
who has an intellect to match his and a clinical interest in the seedy side of
the human soul, a woman unlike those he has previously encountered.
The situation in regard to Watson’s impending marriage is very similar to
the recent Robert Downey Jr movie, ‘Sherlock Holmes’, but without the
comedic elements of Holmes trying to stop the wedding. Everett mostly sulks
and makes snide remarks about it, but eventually he warms to the idea and
by the end is supportive of his friend’s marriage.
As with most Holmes interpretations, one character trait of the detec-
tive is pushed forward as dominant in the storyline. For Everett, this is
undoubtedly the character’s manipulativeness and ruthlessness. Holmes
manipulates and leaves Watson out of the picture, but also uses Jenny,
Rupert Everett as Holmes
Lestrade, Lady Roberta Massingham (the sister of one of the murdered girls)
and Imogen Helhaughton (one of the girls who nearly becomes a victim to the killer) with little regard to their feel-
ings. To him, the ends justify the means as long as the killer is caught. He twice baits
Laying a trap to catch the killer –
while putting others at risk traps for the killer using Lady Roberta as bait while watching from the shadows ready
to catch his man (the second time using a typical Holmes disguise). He manipulates
events so an impromptu identity parade takes place in the corridors of the police
station with little regard to the mental well-being of a young teenage girl coming
face to face with her near-killer.
Perhaps there is some irony that when the killer takes another victim and they
must race against time to save her, it is Watson and not Holmes who finds the way
to locate the killer’s lair. With his experience in relationships, the good doctor realis-
es what is right under Holmes’ nose, and is able to save the day and rescue the girl
from the clutches of the murderer.
All in all, this production is a satisfying one, with Everett portraying one of the
best (if underrated) Holmes to date. It is just a shame that he has not reprised the
role.

McInnerny’s Holmes: ‘The Strange Case of Sherlock Holmes and Arthur Conan Doyle’
The final BBC production we shall discuss is 2005’s ‘The Strange

Case of Sherlock Holmes and Arthur Conan Doyle.’ This semi-biogra-
phical drama, written by David Pirie (‘Murder Rooms’ and ‘The
Woman in White’), briefly features Tim McInnerny as Holmes, con-
fronting Doyle (Douglas Henshall) over his literary ‘murder’.
Following the controversial killing off of Holmes, Doyle is forced into
a psychological battle against a biographer, Mr Selden (Tim
McInnerny), who is desperate to uncover secrets from the writer’s
past. As the story unravels and more of Doyle’s background is
revealed, his very sanity is stretched to the limits. Then Doyle is vis-
The angry and accusing face of Holmes/Selden
ited in the night by Selden, with the appearance of suffering a fall
and a fight. It is then that Doyle realises that his creation has been
given a persona in his mind. The film deliberately leaves it vague whether Mr Selden ever existed, or if he is just a
creation of Doyle’s imagination.
McInnerny’s Holmes is very angry and feels wronged by Doyle, who he sees him as his father and killer. He quotes
Holmes’ dialogue at his creator, before confronting Doyle with the darkness in his past. Holmes acts as a psycholog-
ical detective in Doyle’s own subconscious, helping him realise and put to rest his own inner demons. He comes to
terms with his father’s illness and what he sees as his mother’s (and his own) betrayal of his father in replacing him
(his mother with a Doctor friend, and himself with his old Edinburgh medical colleague Dr Joseph Bell, who is
believed to have been the model for Sherlock Holmes). It is this confrontation that allows Doyle to move on from his
father’s death and begin to write his most famous stories again.
McInnerny’s acting is top notch, with Selden gaining more and more Holmes’ character traits until finally he is
whole in the confrontation in the study. But there is something missing. He does not have Holmes’ enduring appeal.
Rather, he merely seems to be a caricature of the detective. Somewhat ironic because, given that Holmes is a cre-
ation of the creator’s mind, you would think he would be the perfect representation. This could be how the writers
of this drama thought Holmes existed in his creator’s mind, or it could be a flaw in the script. Additionally, McInnerny
does not resemble the classical idea of Holmes. To me I feel that, as an actor McInnerny would make more of an
ideal Mycroft.
Doyle later explains the importance of his use of Selden in The Hound of the Baskervilles—’a man who is not
what he appears to be’—since it is assumed early in the book that the convict Selden is the danger to Sir Henry that is
Doyle with his famous creation lurking in the background

loose on the moor. One of the last scenes of the film is a
narration of Doyle writing Hound, the scene where
Watson (played by Henshall) and Holmes are reunited on
the moor, before walking away together. This could quite
possibly be the best moment in the whole production.
The idea of using Holmes as a psychological detec-
tive who helps Doyle confront his inner demons is a
novel one and works quite well. McInnerny’s acting in
the confrontation scene is superb, but he just doesn’t
‘feel’ right as Holmes. The production is also useful in
providing an interesting perspective on how Doyle him-
self may have seen the character of Sherlock Holmes.

Note: All these BBC TV productions of the Holmes stories I have discussed are available on DVD as part of a BBC
boxed set entitled, The BBC Sherlock Holmes Collection featuring in all eight Holmes productions not just those dis-
cussed above. The other four productions feature actor Peter Cushing as Holmes1.
1 The BBC Sherlock Holmes Collection. Eight features. Includes ‘Hound of the Baskervilles’, ‘A Study in Scarlet’, ‘The Boscombe Valley
Mystery’, ‘The Sign of Four’ and ‘The Blue Carbuncle’ all featuring Peter Cushing. Also includes ‘The Hound of the Baskervilles’ with Richard
Roxburgh, ‘Sherlock Holmes and The Case of the Silk Stocking’, with Rupert Everett, and ‘The Strange Case of Sherlock Holmes and Arthur
Conan Doyle’ with Douglas Henshall as Doyle and Tim McInnerny as Holmes. http://www.amazon.co.uk/BBC-Sherlock-Holmes-Collection-
DVD/dp/B000EZ7VFI/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1266935079&sr=1-5
Jon Rees is a student from Swansea, Wales and a moderator on JTRForums.com. His love of all things
Holmes began as a child after watching Disney's "Basil The Great Mouse Detective".

MIKE COVELL’S
Jack the Blogger

Over the years the blog has become a great place for Ripperologists, historians,
and enthusiasts to share their findings and discuss the topics close to their hearts.
I must admit, when I first started “blogging” I did not expect the site to be so
popular, and did not expect to be bombarded with questions and queries from as
far afield as America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Japan and Europe. In fact,
on average I receive anywhere between 10 and 30 emails a week from people with
a common interest across the globe.
But what is a Blog?

The term Blog refers to a Web Log, or Blog for short. It is a type of website that is maintained
and written by one individual with regular entries discussing anything from their research, articles,
events and other similar material. Writers can add commentary to existing articles, or simply talk
about what is going on in their chosen field. Blogs evolved from online diaries, where people kept
an account of their day to day activities, written on web pages. However, with the introduction of
blog hosting services and new advancements in blogging creation tools and software, the popularity
of the blog began to take off.
There are several types of blog, including Personal Blogs which cover personal daily events and
family life; Corporate Blogs, covering business news directly from the company; Genre Specific
Blogs, covering a set genre, in this instance Ripperology; Media Specific Blogs, which include vlogs
(video blogs), sketchblogs (featuring sketches), and photoblogs (which contain more photography
than text); Device Specific Blogs, which are blogs written or created on specific devices such as
mobile phones or PDAs.
My first ever Jack the Ripper blog began four years ago and it was a simple, somewhat feeble
page, with nothing more than daily news of my progress. I included research, local history news,
commentary and even technical news, purely because I kept breaking my hard drive and needed
a place to vent my frustration!
The blog, however, was short-lived, as I discovered both JTRForums.com and Casebook. With
these two sites I could create a page and add my findings to it; however, it was still confined to
the subject matter I was researching.

In late 2007 Stephen P Ryder of Casebook approached me and asked if I would like a blog
associated to the site, but allowing me creative consent. I jumped at the offer, and began blogging
almost straight away. Sadly many of the earlier posts were lost when Casebook suffered technical
difficulties, but when these were overcome the blog was given new life. From 1 April 2008 I have
blogged almost weekly, in some cases daily, covering all aspects of my research. The blog was an
instant hit, with comments and queries coming to both the online comment box and my email
inbox. Those first few posts were simply an introduction to me and my work, but it has been a
constantly evolving story, with certain ideas dropped and new ideas embraced. At the moment my
Year in Review posts always get attention, and my book reviews are always discussed, with both
authors and publishing houses contacting me to offer thanks.
You would be surprised how many active bloggers there are online, and even more shocked by
the number of “Ripper Bloggers.”
A search for the phrase “Jack the Ripper Blog” on Google brought back an astounding 644,000
hits. These range from sites discussing the case and researchers sharing their findings to sites
devoted to the locations associated with the case.
Certain trends, such as the recent Wolfman movie and Sherlock Holmes game can increase the
number of blog posts regarding the Ripper, as bloggers often tag their posts with phrases including
“Jack the Ripper”, so this number could be a result of these recent media incarnations of Jack
and Abberline.
New technology such as Twitter has created the Micro-Blog, in which posters can create mini
blogs of 140 letters or less. Social Networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook and Bebo all have
the option for users to create blogs.
It is impossible to tell how many blogs there are, but it has been estimated that there are over
70 million globally. The problem is that whenever someone starts countng these blogs, the number
seems to double by the time they have finished!
Over the coming months we will look at the blogs available online, who is posting, what they are
discussing, and how you can get involved.
Mike Covell is a happily married father of two. He has appeared on the Rippercast
podcast and JTRForums Ripper Radio, as well as BBC Radio Humberside and BBC Look
North discussing the case. He has appeared in Hull Daily Mail and the Hull Advertiser
discussing both Jack the Ripper and Local History. He is a Moderator on JTRForums.com,
and has lectured in Hull at the Hull Heritage Centre on the Whitechapel Murders. During
his spare time he can be found propping up the desks in the Hull History Centre, blogging,
or building model WW2 vehicles with his son.

I Beg To Report
ALL THE NEWS THAT’S FIT TO PRINT...
AND SOMETIMES NOT
RIPPER VAMPIRE NOVEL. Winging our way out of Canada, along with the
Winter Olympics, is Whitechapel Road - A Vampyre Tale by Wayne Mallows,
which has been published as a moderately hefty 300 pages long ‘trade’ size
paperback. It is the first novel by Mallows, a resident of Niagara Falls, Ontario,
and is the first of a planned trilogy, we hear. Mallow says, ‘I have been into
vampires my entire life, and have always enjoyed writing, so I have brought
my two passions together. Whitechapel Road was three years in the making.
I did extensive research to make it as historically accurate as possible, while
tying in the fictional characters and story.’
Here’s a synopsis of the plot:
Born in the South of England in 1854, Aremis thought his life was laid out
from the very beginning. But that was all to change. Expecting to meet his
wife-to-be at the annual harvest festival, Aremis has no idea that the evening
would bring forth an evil far beyond his comprehension.
Nursed back to health by his sister Temperance, the terrifying truth begin to unfold and he is
forced to leave his home in the hopes of finding answers within the city of London.
There on the shadowy back streets of the cities east end, he finds himself at the heart of
an ancient curse. Drawn into playing a deadly game of cat-and-mouse with a beautiful female
stranger, he quickly discovers that she may be the only one who can explain the strange events
which have besieged him. Haunted by nightmares and conflicting moral issues, he is propelled
towards an unbelievable confrontation, one that will find him at the centre of the most horrific
string of murders in London’s history.
List price is $24.95 US and the book can be ordered directly from the author at www.etsy.com/
view_listing.php?listing_id=39768793&ref=cat1_gallery_10
CREEPY AND CREEPIER. Actors Christopher Walken and Leonardo Di Caprio played father and
son in the 2002 movie Catch Me If You Can where Di Caprio’s character was a world-class con man
being chased by an FBI agent portrayed by Tom Hanks. Walken, now age 66, is today acting on
Broadway for the first time in a decade, in playwright Martin McDonagh’s Behanding in Spokane
in which he plays a quiet but oddball character named Carmichael. The veteran actor, who won a
supporting actor Oscar as a roulette-playing American soldier in the 1978 movie The Deer Hunter
has been praised by his Behanding director, John Crowley, for his quality of having ‘this ambient,
freaky, chilling quality that curls around him’ and an ability to ‘plug into a character’s vulnerability
in a split second with his face, his tone, his body.’
DiCaprio’s latest vehicle is the Martin Scorsese chiller
movie Shutter Island based on the Dennis Lehane novel of the
same name and adapted for the screen by scriptwriter Laeta
Kalogridis. DiCaprio plays conflicted US marshal Teddy Daniels
in this 1954 period piece. He’s haunted by scenes of Dachau
and the death of his late wife in a fire. The movie has been
receiving mixed reviews partly perhaps because of Scorsese’s
notion to try to reference every noir device from classic movies
in a kitchen sink approach to the project.
This referencing of other works, which has also become a
recent vice of Broadway, with one show spoofing all the other
shows, works against the effectiveness of Scorsese’s project.
As Anthony Lane notes in a review of Shutter Island in The New
Yorker of 1 March, ‘Consider the opening scene, with a boat
ghosting of the fog (or rather out of “The Fog”).’
Veteran actor Sir Ben Kingsley is on hand as creepy psychiatrist
Dr Cawley in a chipper bow tie to add a veneer of classicism to
the movie. Interesting how these British-trained actors always
add something extra to the project – similarly Sir Anthony
Hopkins in The Wolfman.
Salon.com critic Andrew O’Hehir finds that Shutter Island, set in a neo-Gothic mental hospital
on a Boston Harbor island during a hurricane, ‘is purposefully and self-consciously overwrought.’
Scorsese has been reported as saying that the abandoned Medfield, Massachusetts asylum used
for the shoot ‘has the feeling of a trap, a labyrinth – a labyrinth of the mind, which is what I
wanted.’
Despite the critics’ carping, the flick has become box office gold,
presumably on the basis of DiCaprio’s star power.
The boy-faced DiCaprio has featured in several Scorsese movies, including
2002’s The Gangs of New York where his character seemed overshadowed
by co-star Daniel Day-Lewis’s more memorable portrayal of a vicious gang
leader. In the director’s 2004 The Aviator, he played Howard Hughes, but may
have lacked the gravitas to successfully portray the enigmatic millionaire,
inventor, flyer and recluse (in Hughes’ last years). While DiCaprio acquitted
himself well in the director’s Boston police drama, The Departed (2006), he
was part of a strong ensemble including Jack Nicholson, Ray Winstone and
Matt Damon.
Critic O’Hehir notes that Scorsese’s Shutter Island was released the same
day as The Ghost Writer directed by controversial director Roman Polanski
(Rosemary’s Baby), making for an ironic juxtaposition in movie vehicles. He
writes: ‘I think we need to switch on the way-back machine and convince
Scorsese and Roman Polanski to swap projects, roughly three years ago. Seriously. [Shutter Island] is
a flawed, baroque, vastly overcooked Scorsese film, which will intrigue some viewers and infuriate
many others; it would be beautifully suited to Polanski’s coldhearted economy.’

The Ghost Writer is praised by O’Hehir as a ‘canny and
claustrophobic new thriller.’ Based on the novel The Ghost by
British writer Robert Harris, who co-wrote the script with Polanski,
it is about an author, played by Ewan McGregor, who is hired as
the ghostwriter for a retired Prime Minister of Great Britain, the
character clearly being based on former Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The fictional PM, Andrew Lang, is played with panache by veteran
smoothie Pierce Brosnan. The previous ‘ghost’ tapped for the job,
an aide of Lang’s, died mysteriously, drowned and washed ashore
on Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. Mirroring real life, Lang is
being investigated for his role in beginning a Middle East war on
a pretext and for his role in the handling of terrorist suspects,
including allegations of sanctioning torture. In other words, an
investigation of possible war crimes. Now that is creepy.
‘Please, No More Mr. Bad Guy Roles! (But Creepy Is Fine)’ by Patrick
Healy, The New York Times, New York, USA, 21 February 2010.
‘Shutter Island: Scorsese goes crazy!’ by Andrew O’Hehir,
Salon.com, 18 February 2010. www.salon.com/entertainment/
movies/shutter_island/index.html?story=/ent/movies/andrew_
ohehir/2010/02/18/shutter_island
‘The Ghost Writer: Polanski strikes back’ by Andrew O’Hehir, Salon.com, 18 February 2010.
www.salon.com/ent/movies/andrew_ohehir/2010/02/18/ghost_writer
‘TIME AFTER TIME’ MUSICAL HEADED FOR BROADWAY? The

musical Time After Time billed as ‘the New Romantic Sci-Fi
Musical,’ received its world premiere on Friday, 26 February, in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. The show is based on the 1979
movie of the same name starring Malcolm McDowell and David
Warner, inspired by the original novel by Karl Alexander. The
musical follows author H G Wells as he uses the time machine of
his famous novel to follow Jack the Ripper to 21st century New
York City.
The musical is being presented at Pittsburgh’s Pittsburgh
Playhouse in a production featuring Point Park University’s
Conservatory Theatre Company. The show, directed by Gabriel
Barre (Off-Broadway’s The Wild Party) is written by Stephen Cole
(book and lyrics) and Jeffrey Saver (music).
The cast includes Point Park University Conservatory of
Performing Arts students John Wascavage as Wells, Michael
Campayno as John Leslie Stevenson, Taylor Chalker as Amy, Sawyer
Armstrong as Carol and Sara Manganello as Sister, supported by
an ensemble of 25 performers.

The production notes tell us:
Love and murder intersect in ‘Time After Time’, an exhilarating musical that explores the origin
of good and evil and the dynamic of intensely volatile relationships. John Leslie Stevenson, also
known as the serial killer Jack the Ripper, has escaped authorities using a time machine invented
by his friend H G Wells. In an attempt to return Stevenson to his proper time, Wells follows him to
the future only to fall in love with the murderer’s next victim. Will Wells be able to save her? Or
will he fail to rein in the 19th-century terror he has released upon modern-day New York? Filled
with beautiful ballads, magical time-travel sequences and unforgettable moments, Time After
Time promises to stir audiences’ hearts and minds.
Time After Time received a private reading in New York City in August 2009 but
this is its first full-scale production. The Pittsburgh run will allow the backers and
creative team to tweak it ahead of a possible Broadway run.
Writer Stephen Cole told Playbill.com: ‘Doing a full scale world-premiere
musical... is a rare opportunity to work on a new musical away from New York
City with professional designers, a New York director, a Broadway orchestrator,
a ten-piece orchestra manned by the best of Pittsburgh professional musicians is
a dream come true. This show can only be realized fully in this way. A workshop
and reading only tells you so much. But now we have magic, a time machine,
projections, things that really help bring the show to life.’
As of writing, Time After Time was due to be performed 26-28 February and
11-14 March. For tickets and information, call the Pittsburgh Playhouse box office
Stephen Cole
at (412) 621-4445 or buy tickets online at www.pittsburghplayhouse.com
‘Time After Time, the New Romantic Sci-Fi Musical, Has a Date With Pittsburgh’ by Kenneth Jones
on playbill.com, 16 February 2010. www.playbill.com/news/article/137325-Time-After-Time-
the-New-Romantic-Sci-Fi-Musical-Premieres-Feb-26-in-Pittsburgh
RISE IN HATE CRIMES ON JEWS ALARM BRITISH AUTHORITIES. British Prime Minister Gordon
Brown is one of the Government officials disturbed by reports of increased hate crimes against the
nation’s Jewish population. Brown characterised the rise in antisemitism in the country as ‘deeply
troubling’.
Such crimes have been on the rise in London. The Jewish Community Security Trust (CST) reports
it recorded 924 hate incidents over the year, 55 per cent more than the previous high of 598
incidents in 2006. Many of the incidents have been linked to events in the Middle East. Around a
quarter of incidents included some form of reference to the early 2009 Israeli invasion of Gaza
which resulted in clashes between police and protesters outside the Israeli Embassy in Kensington.
A 69 per cent rise in incidents over those experienced in 2008 followed an ‘unprecedented’ number
of anti-Semitic attacks recorded in January and February during and after the conflict between
Israel and Hamas in Gaza.
Prime Minister Brown stated that no matter the political disagreement over the developments
in the Middle East, ‘No strength of feeling can ever justify violent extremism or attacks and we
will stand firm against all those who would use anti-Israeli feeling as an excuse or disguise for
antisemitism and attacks on the Jewish community.’

The London hate crime data cited by the CST do not correspond
with those reported by the Metropolitan Police. Indeed, Met
statistics suggest a decline in racial and religiously aggravated
incidents between 2007 and 2008. As with all reported statistics,
however, the way in which the data are collected directly affects
what conclusions can be made. In fact, surprisingly, there are no
UK national figures for hate crimes against any specific group such
as Jews or Muslims.
During the Gaza incursion, a number of anti-Semitic incidents
were reported in London’s East End. Graffiti included slogans
declaring ‘Kill Jews’ and ‘Jews are scumbags.’ A similar slogan was
on the wall of a children’s playground on Whitechapel’s Chicksand
housing estate.
In Golders Green, youths chanting anti-Semitic slogans and
waving flags tried to intimidate locals. Other youths tried to
torch Brondesbury Park Synagogue in Willesden. A Jewish-owned
Starbucks in Whitechapel was firebombed, windows were smashed
at a Tesco Metro supermarket in Commercial Road, Stepney Green,
and ‘Kill Jews’ was daubed in paint.
Entrance to Wentworth Model Dwellings, scene
In reaction to these incidents,
of infamous anti-semitic graffiti in 1888
additional community ‘reassurance
patrols’ have been mounted in the Jewish areas of Golders Green,
North Finchley, Stanmore, Stanford Hill and St John’s Wood.
In response to the reported rise in anti-Semitic incidents, Michael
Gove, Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families
and Conservative Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath, stated:
‘Every one in public life – politicians, media figures, academics
and community leaders – has to recognise that this growth in anti-
Semitism is a stain on our society. History tells us that whenever
Jewish individuals feel less safe, society as a whole is becoming less Firebombed Starbucks
free. We must learn the lessons of the past.’ in Whitechapel
‘Attacks on London’s Jews soar - PM “deeply troubling”- Catalog of hate’, London Daily News,
London, UK, 5 February 2010. www.thelondondailynews.com/attacks-londons-jews-soar-deeply-
troubling-catalog-hate-p-3760.html
‘Gordon Brown “troubled” by CST antisemitism report’, by Marcus Dysch, The Jewish Chronicle,
London, UK, 5 February 2010. www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/26857/gordon-brown-troubled-cst-
antisemitism-report
BREAKING NEWS
As this edition of Ripperologist was about to roll off the virtual presses we heard news of a
memorial service for Moors Murderers’ victim Keith Bennett, and the re-arrest of Jon Venables,
one of the killers of James Bulger. A full report on these stories will appear in the next issue.

MISSOURI EDUCATOR ACTRESS BRINGS DR TUMBLETY BACK TO LIFE.
Donna Ross, a Chesterfield, Missouri, USA, resident has been giving
presentations on Jack the Ripper and other period characters. Ross
believes the famous killer was ‘Francis Tumulty who left England
and visited mayhem and murder upon St. Louis until his own death
in 1903.’
Ross not only plays and lectures about Jack the Ripper at area
senior citizen nursing homes, but she has written a soon-to-be-
published whodunit entitled, Jack the Ripper in St. Louis.
Ross says, ‘No one really knows who Jack the Ripper was, but
everyone knows he was pretty strange,’ said Ross. ‘I have lots of
evidence that he was, in fact, Francis Tumulty [sic]. And Tumulty
probably committed a few bad deeds right here in St. Louis.’
In her presentations, Ross also portrays American newspaper
tycooon James Gordon Bennett Jr (1841–1918), publisher of the New
York Herald along with other period personalities.
Ross noted that ‘One of the first things Bennett did after inheriting
the newspaper at 25 was to send a reporter to find a lost missionary
in Africa. That stunt is remembered with the immortal words: “Dr. Donna Ross as James Gordon Bennett Jr.
Livingstone, I presume.”‘
‘From Jack The Ripper To James Gordon Bennett Jr: Educator Donna Ross brings characters to
life’, 5 February 2010. www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Articles-i-2010-02-05-168604.113118_
From_Jack_The_Ripper_To_James_Gordon_Bennett_Jr.html
A SINGING CANADIAN JACK THE RIPPER. StoryBook Theatre in Calgary,

Canada, staged a workshop performance of a Ripper musical in Febrary. As
reported in the Calgary Sun, ‘Jack is the star of a big, brassy Broadway-
style musical that has been work shopped in Toronto and Calgary and is
still being tweaked. It’s the brainchild of Calgary actor, director and writer
Tory Doctor, who enlisted the talents of composer David Zabriskie and
author Jack Whyte, to help him tell the story of Jack the Ripper through
his female victims.’
We learn that the Calgary concert version of Whitechapel played last
spring to a packed crowd. The Ripper musical was partly staged to raise
money for the Calgary Theatre. Tory Doctor stated: ‘As is the case with many artists in Calgary, I
got my start through StoryBook and it would be a shame not to see the company remain active. I
wanted to give something back to the community that encouraged me.’
Doctor contacted the singers and actors from the original Calgary concert and ‘to a person they
all said they wanted to help out and wanted to volunteer their time and talents to aid StoryBook.’
The show Whitechapel played in the Pumphouse’s Victor Mitchell Theatre Feb. 11, 12 and 13.
‘Jack the Ripper singing for StoryBook’, by Louis B Hobson, Calgary Sun, 6 February 2010.
www.calgarysun.com/entertainment/columnists/louis_hobson/2010/02/06/12775401.html

FASHION GURU’S BIZARRE VIEW OF WOMEN, VIOLENCE AND DEATH.
In the wake of the 12 February suicide of gay British fashion designer
Alexander McQueen, commentators have been giving his strange
but fascinating ideas a second look. The designer reportedly killed
himself following the recent death of his mother Joyce. His death also
follows that of his mentor, uber-stylist Isabella Blow, who committed
suicide in 2007 by swallowing weed killer after being diagnosed with
ovarian cancer.
The designer’s body was found at his luxury flat in Mayfair in
London’s swanky West End. It was reported that McQueen hanged
himself in his closet and left a suicide note. At the time of his death,
his ‘McQ’ fashion line was due to be shown at New York’s Fashion
Week but, in view of his suicide, the show was cancelled.
McQueen’s bizarre and arresting designs have been a sensation on the British fashion scene for
nearly twenty years. In 1996, McQueen became the youngest designer in history to win a British
Designer of the Year Award; he went on to scoop the title a further three times.
McQueen was born in 1969 in the East End of London, the son of a cockney taxi driver. He showed
a passion for fashion from a young age. He made dresses for his sisters, then at age 16 launched
into a career in fashion as an apprentice on Savile Row. Following a brief period of pattern cutting
in Milan, McQueen returned to London and enrolled at Central Saint Martin’s. Early on, he made
suits for Prince Charles. He graduated in 1992 with a collection entitled, significantly, given his
East End background, ‘Jack the Ripper Stalking his Victims’. The entire collection was then bought
by Isabella Blow, who became his champion.
He followed this up with his
equally provocative ‘Highland
Rape’ collection featuring
bloodstained models and
daring sheer pieces inspired
by his Scottish ancestry, made
from remnants from fabric
shops.
In The Independent on 14
February, commentator Joan
Smith published a perspective
on the controversial designer
reflecting both the shock and
dazzlement that people felt
about his daring designs and
about the sudden and violent
nature of his death but also
finding that McQueen’s view
of women’s bodies to be
McQueen’s Autumn 2009 collection ultimately a sinister one.

Smith wrote:
In 2001, he sent a model on to the catwalk in Paris representing a dying bull, her torso apparently
pierced by two lances, while his autumn 2009 men’s collection featured Jack the Ripper types in
leather butchers’ aprons...
McQueen was a showman and fashion editors emerged from his collections stunned by the
extravaganza; when you’re basically there to write about clothes, what are you to make of
models tottering along the catwalk in ripped dresses, looking like blood-stained rape victims?...
Even when commentators talked last week about McQueen’s fascination with death, religion
and violence, they did it in a disturbing way, as though such themes were simply expressions of
his theatricality. Friends mentioned his mother’s very recent death – her funeral hadn’t taken
place when McQueen hanged himself – but very few seemed willing to mention the subject of
depression...
More men commit suicide than women, and the death of someone so young is an unnecessary
tragedy. But I don’t think that the world of fashion is any more able to make sense of Alexander
McQueen in death than in life. He provided spectacle after spectacle, and it was taken in by the
show.
‘British fashion icon Alexander McQueen commits suicide days after death of his beloved mother’,
by Rebecca Camber and Sara Nathan, Daily Mail, London, UK, 12 February 2010. www.dailymail.
co.uk/news/article-1250249/Alexander-McQueen-commits-suicide.html
‘McQueen had a sinister view of women’s bodies’ by Joan Smith, The Independent, London,
UK, 14 February 2010. www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/joan-smith/joan-smith-
mcqueen-had-a-sinister-view-of-womens-bodies-1898867.html
THAI ‘RIPPER’ RECEIVES SECOND LIFE SENTENCE. Thailand’s Criminal Court has sentenced a
suspected serial killer to life in prison for the second time. The man, Somkid Phumphuang, already
serving life for murder, allegedly murdered five sex workers. He received the new life sentence for
the death of one of those victims and is due to stand trial for another three murders.
Serving a life sentence for killing a nightclub singer, Somkid was handed a second life term
for strangling masseuse Sompong Phimphornphirom, 25, at a Buri Ram motel in June 2005. Last
August, Somkid, dubbed ‘Thailand’s Jack the Ripper’, was sentenced to the first life sentence on
charges of murdering singer Warunee Phiphabutr in a Mukdahan hotel.
The court found Phumphuang, 45, guilty of premeditated murder and robbery of the masseuse.
The suspect met the victim at a hotel in downtown Buri Ram before taking her to Piya Mansion.
The couple then had sex. While Ms Sompong was asleep, Somkid strangled her to death and took
her belongings including a gold ring and necklace worth 12,200 baht.
The court handed down the death penalty to Somkid but commuted the sentence to life
imprisonment due to his confession. In addition to the life sentence Somkid must pay 10,000 baht
to the victim’s family for stealing the woman’s belongings.
‘Thai “Jack the Ripper” jailed’, Bangkok Post, Bangkok, Thailand, 13 February 2010. www.
bangkokpost.com/news/crimes/32827/thai-jack-the-ripper-jailed
‘Thailand’s Jack the Ripper’ given another life sentence, The Nation/Asia News Network, 13
February 2010. news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Crime/Story/A1Story20100213-
198494.html
Dear Rip
Your Letters and Comments
Dear Rip,
Beadle Prize 2009

It came as a big surprise to Debs and me that our jointly written
article, ‘A Rose by any other name?’ was the winner of the 2009 Beadle
Prize, especially as it was up against some excellent articles, any of
which would have been a worthy winner.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone at the Rip
for publishing the article and the judges for voting it the winner. We
would also like to thank again all the people who were involved in
helping us write and research the article, those named in the credits
and the many unnamed people who contributed ideas and thoughts
to the Mylett threads on both jtrforums.com and casebook.org that
inspired our article.
We would also like to thank all those people who have sent us
congratulation messages too.
A portion of the prize money is going to be donated to the Children’s
Heart Surgery Fund, based at Leeds General Infirmary.
With best wishes, and thanks.

Robert Clack and Debra Arif
Dear Rob and Debs,

You’re most welcome! We’re delighted to hear that you’re donating some of the prize money
to charity, a generous gesture of which Jeremy Beadle would have greatly approved.
Now the winners have received their prize, we’d like to announce that our nominees for the
Prize will each receive a free one-year subscription to Ripperologist. So congratulations to Neil
Bell, John Bennett, Joe Chetcuti, Jonathan Hainsworth and Simon Wood. Well done!
Don’t forget, the Beadle Prize for 2010 is currently open, so send in your articles now!
Adam Wood
Executive Editor

Dear Rip,
Anagram Puzzle
Got bored waiting to see the Doc about my shoulder did a little anagram thingy which, if its good
enough, might fill a corner for you in a future issue of Ripperologist.
Best wishes,
Roger Baynton
Dear Roger,
Thank you! We’re delighted to publish the anagram below. Without wishing you any harm,
should you find yourself in your doctor’s waiting room again in the future please feel free to write
more puzzles!
Adam Wood
Executive Editor
Places Suspects (far fetched & otherwise!)

1. Rats I’m Queer 1. My! I’m a Serb jack.
2. Carol, or mad mice 2. Sad limey zeroes.
3. Teenager’s ghost site 3. Wreck real tits.
4. Fits idle pals 4. So evil so knew risk.
5. Mental reset 5. Hell! Jet rip rip.
Victims (and alleged victims!) Ripperologists (and alleged

Don’t forget some had more than one alias
Ripperologists – you decide!)
and some had nicknames. 1. Of an islander.
2. Now dull mad bore.
1. Fear Mr Inane
3. I’m earth-sized graphical choir.
2. Dalek’s soap here
4. Helps in dig up.
3. Menial old wino
5. Clinical or a twerp
4. Elementary like a jet
5. I ran naked
Answers
Rumbelow. 3. Christopher-Michael DiGrazia. 4. Philip Sugden. 5. Patricia Cornwell.
Sickert. 4. Severin Klosowski. 5. Jill the Ripper. RIPPEROLOGISTS 1. Daniel Farson. 2. Donald
Jeanette Kelly. 5. Dark Annie. SUSPECTS 1. James Maybrick. 2. Alois Szemeredy. 3. Walter
Leman Street. VICTIMS 1. Annie Farmer. 2. Old Shakespeare. 3. Annie Millwood. 4. Marie
PLACES 1. Mitre Square. 2. Commercial Road. 3. St. George’s-in-the-East. 4. Spitalfields. 5.

RIPPING YARNS
Reviews
OFFICIAL DVD OF THE JACK THE RIPPER CONFERENCE 2009
4 DVDs, PAL and NTSC formats available. £15 + p&p
Available from www.ripperconference.com/dvd
Review by Roger Baynton
Perhaps, first, I should explain why I bought the quadruple DVD set of the ‘Jack’s Back’ 2009
London Conference. I have been a Ripperologist since before the term ‘Ripperologist’ was invented,
in the sense that the case has fascinated me for all the reasons that all readers of this fine journal
will know about. However due to the usual constraints of work, financial and family commitments
I never had more than a passive interest.
But times changed and the commitments lessened. Also the internet came along which meant
access to Ripper lore was not only confined to the printed word and the occasional documentary
on video (remember video?) but I could also access fine resources like Stephen Ryder’s Casebook
site. I realised that I actually knew a fair bit about the case and was quite getting into it. I felt
that I really should do something about it. But what?
To be honest, what really put me off were the message boards on Casebook. I had views and
some knowledge on most of the issues but the frequent vituperation on the boards really did deter
me from going down that particular route! The ‘tone’ of the Casebook message boards is often
aggressive and sometimes, quite frankly, abusive. I think it is a fear that being, whilst not exactly
a beginner in the world of JTR (I have most of the usual books and have followed the case since
before the centenary), I do not have the expert knowledge of some of the prime movers, and
should I express a view, which is less than founded in extensive research I would be ridiculed and/
or criticised.
Don’t get me wrong. Healthy debate
and disagreement is of course to be
welcomed and, indeed inevitable in
JACK’S BACK: LONDON 2009
RIPPER CONFERENCE
JACK’S BACK: LONDON 2009
On 24 and 25 October, 65 delegates attended the

biannual Jack the Ripper Conference, held for the first a field with as many ‘don’t knows’ as
time in London, at the Kings Stores on Widegate Street.
This Official DVD contains full footage of all the lectures

and events, a total of over 7 hours featuring the RIPPER CONFERENCE ripperology. I am uncertain what it is
following: JACK’S BACK: LONDON 2009
*
*
MC Colin Cobb
Stuart Orme on Claypipe Alice
Christopher George on the police activity of 1889 THE OFFICIAL DVD
about JTR which seems to generate
*
this unfortunate violent denunciation

* M J Trow on the Torso Murders
* Philip Huchinson on the Dutfields Yard photograph
* Paul Begg on Leather Apron
RIPPER CONFERENCE
* Richard Jones on the Ripper and the Spiritualists

*
*
A bespoke Ripper Tour by Philip Hutchinson
John Bennett’s Ripperland or condemnation but it does not exist
in other hobbies/message boards I
follow (eg Titanic, old motorbikes,
blues guitar). It’s a terrible shame.
OFFICIAL DVD
I still wanted to get involved though.
www.ripperconference.com
© Bullseye Lantern 2009

There was the Whitechapel Society of course; I had been a passive member for some years. What
sort of people hid behind these names that I kept seeing in their Journal and in Ripperologist.
A lot of them were the same people who used the message boards it seemed, so did they spend
their evenings arguing and slagging each other off? Not my idea of a fun evening! Or, of course,
were they a bunch of anoraks who discussed the different spacing of the buttons of police officers’
tunics in 1888 in the City force compared with the Met? Watching paint dry sprung to mind as an
alternative hobby.
It was at about this point that I realised that there was a DVD out which showed the 2009
Conference. That would give me my answers, because we all know that the camera doesn’t lie,
don’t we?
So, what do you get, what’s it going to cost you, and how do you get it?
First impressions are exceptionally favourable. Frankly I was expecting something much more,
well, amateur I suppose. And something more amateur would be highly acceptable for what is,
after all, a very minority interest and a DVD which is never going to trouble the bestsellers list!
This is a production which has quality stamped all over it.
The four (yes, four) DVDs come in a proper hinged DVD case with a professionally produced
colour cover with an evocatively lit Christ Church, Spitalfields on the front cover.
The rear cover gives you full details of the event, the speakers, their topics and a hint of what’s
on the DVD.
And what is on the DVD is a whole lot of Ripper lore, facts, trivia and controversy,
and a lot of laughs too! I don’t know how much there is on the DVDs, I
didn’t time it. The website says ‘a total of over 5 hours’, while the
back of the DVD cover says ‘a total of over 7 hours’. Anyway, as I
have said elsewhere privately in a completely different context,
the length is not important. It is, of course, in the quality of
the experience.
These 5 (or 7) hours will cost you just £16 including delivery
in the UK, which is remarkable value compared to other
specialist low volume production DVDs I have purchased on
the arcane subjects in which I dabble about. International
prices are also reasonable £17 to continental Europe and £18
to the Rest of the World. The DVDs are, of course, supplied in
the appropriate region format to your location.
Ordering is through the website at www.ripperconference.com/
dvd. Perhaps I should say here that I did have an issue with the display
of this site in Internet Explorer, it just did not want to show the dropdown
ordering tab. I don’t think that it was just my Internet Explorer, I recall seeing someone on the
message boards saying that they were having similar problems. Anyway, it worked fine for me in
Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome and Apple Safari.

It is not my purpose to review the Conference itself as recorded
on the DVD; the Conference has been reviewed elsewhere (Rip
108 - Ed.) and by those much better qualified to do so than myself.
Suffice it to say that when your DVDs contain contributions from
names such as Paul Begg, Chris George, Philip Hutchinson and M
J Trow you are getting the market leaders. Woven together by
the humorous and engaging MC skills of Colin Cobb, it doesn’t
get any better than this!
You get all of the presentations in their entirety, less the
odd slip or dramatic pause. Also, and this is important, where
the speaker has used PowerPoint slides, these are edited into
the filming, not vaguely seen in the distance on a projection
screen.
The sound quality in the room is excellent with minimal
distractions from sneezes and coughs etc from the audience (this
is England in October, so let’s consider it local colour consistent
Colin Cobb ©Gail Dowle
with Autumn in the East End which is after all what we are all
interested in).
What you don’t get though are the questions – and answers obviously - which followed the
presentations. Personally I think this is a shame. My experience at conferences is that it is often
the questions which bring out the really pressing issues for delegates. On the other hand I wasn’t
there so don’t really know the quality, no offence intended, of these sessions. Also, of course,
without the questions we already have 4 DVDs and 5 or 7 hours, and I appreciate the editor may
have had to make some tough decisions in this context.
Particularly well shot, to my
unknowing eye, is the Ripper Tour led
by Philip Hutchinson. The filming is
smooth and well edited, the locations
included on the DVD well chosen,
and the ‘on the go’ commentary
commendably clear (not always easy
with wind, traffic and other extraneous
noise). It is good to have film of some
of the more unusual locations – I just
don’t want to see those benches in
Mitre Square again! Indeed, and I just
know someone will correct me if I am
wrong, I don’t think Swallow Gardens
Delegates irecreate the Dutfield’s Yard photograph ©Gail Dowle
or St George’s-in-the-East mortuary
have been captured on DVD before,
not in the context of a JTR documentary anyway. I particularly enjoyed how the production team
labelled the names of the delegates who lined up for a modern day replica of Philip Hutchinson’s
Dutfield Yard photograph. It was good to put some faces to names. Despite what I have said above
about the more unusual locations, it was fascinating to see Philip’s views on the precise location
of Room 13 Miller’s Court.

Call me shallow if you wish, but I have to say that the highlight of
this set of four DVDs for me was the classic alternative documentary
Ripperland by John Bennett. This is quite simply hilarious and worth the
purchase price on its own. It was so funny, I shot milk out my nose. This
was strange, because I was not drinking milk at the time.
So, has this set of DVDs achieved the objective that I was seeking? The
answer is ‘yes’. John Reith was born the year after Jack was doing his
stuff. 33 years later he defined the guiding mission of the BBC, with its
mantra ‘to inform, educate and entertain’. These DVDs do exactly that
and will continue to do so for a long time. Did they encourage me to
brave active involvement in 2010 Ripperology? Well, the delegates really
seemed a nice bunch. They didn’t seem at all aggressive or pugnacious;
I didn’t see any of them as trainspotter type obsessives (no offence to
any trainspotters out there, but you know what I mean). Since then I
have ‘friended’ (that awful new verb) several of them on Facebook and
only one has refused my friend request. Yes, the DVDs did give me a lot
John Bennett of reassurance in Ripperology 2010 style. It is alive and flourishing, and
©Gail Dowle
contrary to evidence elsewhere really rather healthy.
Would I recommend this DVD set? Frankly, to the person who knows nothing about the case,
probably not. There are better options to pick up the basics. To those of us committed enough to
subscribe to Ripperologist, it is, if not a necessity, then certainly a ‘highly desirable’.
If you were there you will want it. If you weren’t there you will learn something, I guarantee it,
and I guarantee you will have quite a few laughs too!
THE WOLFMAN
Universal Pictures, 102 minutes.
Director: Joe Johnston; Producers: Bill Carraro, Ryan Kavanaugh,
Benicio Del Toro;
Executive producers: Sean Daniel, Stratton Leopold;
Original Music: Danny Elfman; Special makeup effects artist: Rick
Baker
Starring Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Art Malik, Hugo
Weaving, Emily Blunt
“When the moon is full the legend comes to life” warns the tagline
for the remake of 1941’s The Wolfman, a horror classic.
You may be asking why a review of a ‘monster’ film is appearing

in the pages of a magazine about Jack the Ripper. Well, apart from
the remote possibility of the above tagline applying to the Victorian
murderer, the writers of the film decided for some reason to introduce
Chief Inspector Abberline to the foggy Blackmoor woods in search of
the titular hairy killer.

It’s not the first time the Ripper has been entwined with fictional beasts; The Times of 10
September 1888, in discussing the murder of Annie Chapman, said: “The mind travels back to...
Edgar Allan Poe’s “Murders in the Rue Morgue”... in the endeavour to conjure up some parallel for
this murderer’s brutish savagery”, while two days earlier The Star reported “a nameless reprobate
- half beast, half man - is at large, who is daily gratifying his murderous instincts on the most
miserable and defenceless classes of the community”. The Alderley and Wilmslow Advertiser of
12 October 1888 even went so far as to name “a cruel FRANKENSTEIN or a brutal EDWARD HYDE”
as sinister role models for the killer.
Whatever the reason for Abberline appearing in the script of the new film, Hugo Weaving, who
plays the detective, certainly looks the part. Weaving told CanMag.com that the one thing he did
take from our Frederick after research was “The mutton chop whiskers, which was based on a
sketch that I had seen of him. So, that was my input into the visual character.”
Less impressive is the change of first name from Frederick to Francis, which left this reviewer
scratching his head. However, as Weaving confirmed to CanMag.com, “The most important thing
about using Abberline in this film was that it immediately, in the viewers mind, leads you to start
thinking about London streets and that whole horror that was Jack the Ripper. It adds a great bit
of flavor.”
And that it certainly does.
Hugo Weaving as Inspector Abberline

A Puerto Rican Werewolf in London
While the original Wolfman takes place entirely in the ancestral home in Wales, the new version
takes Benicio Del Toro’s troubled Lawrence Talbot to London’s Lambeth Asylum in a bid to cure
the poor chap’s misguided belief that he is a werewolf, leading to atmospheric scenes where
the Wolfman bounds across the capital’s rooftops. With the rest of the cast including Sir Anthony
Hopkins, Art Malik and Emily Blunt, and a score by Danny Elfman, all the pieces are in place for a
rip-roaring 100 minutes of classic horror.
Unfortunately the film, a strangely disjointed affair, is terrible.
Del Toro, a huge fan of the monster movies of the 1930s

and 40s, seems to be paying homage to the original film
and in the process makes the film entirely predictable,
leading to zero suspense. It’s played straight, but the
audience in the cinema Ripperologist attended were
giggling throughout. The monster is revealed too early,
and while the transformation scene by special effects
guru Rick Baker is satisfying enough, the Wolfman himself
is as scary as an English Sheepdog with a toothache.
Despite our thumbs-down, the hinted-at sequel

might well be worth watching: Abberline is attacked by
the Wolfman and lives. Will he become the monster in
Wolfman 2? Will Hairy Fred battle the Ripper?
If readers can’t wait to find out, rent the original 1941

movie and enjoy Lon Chaney’s classic portayal.

RIPPER CONFERENCE
JACK’S BACK : LONDON 2009
On 24 and 25 October 2009, 65 delegates attended the

biannual Jack the Ripper Conference, held for the first time in
London at the Kings Stores on Widegate Street E1.
This 4-disc Official DVD contains full footage of all the lectures
and events, a total of over 5 hours featuring the following:
* MC Colin Cobb
* Stuart Orme on Claypipe Alice
* Christopher George on the police activity of 1889
* M J Trow on the Torso Murders
* Paul Begg on Leather Apron
* Philip Huchinson on the Dutfields Yard photograph
* Richard Jones on the Ripper and the Spiritualists
* A bespoke Ripper Tour by Philip Hutchinson
* John Bennett’s Ripperland
BUY NOW!
£15+p&p, available from www.ripperconference.com/dvd
On the Sofa: Simon Wood
Ripperologist: Please make yourself comfortable.
Simon Wood: Thank you for inviting me onto your sofa.
Ripperologist: How would you like to be addressed? Sir? Mr Wood? Simon?
Simon Wood: Simon.
Ripperologist: You are known to most people as Simon Wood. Yet you prefer to sign your articles
as Simon D Wood. Is there any particular reason for that?
Simon Wood: There is another Simon Wood who writes thrillers.
Ripperologist: What does the ‘D’ stand for?
Simon Wood: Daryl.
Ripperologist: We’d like some more information about you, if you don’t mind. You were born in
Britain, we understand. Could you tell us something about your background?
Simon Wood: I was born in St Austell, Cornwall, and grew up in north London. I have had various
careers. I worked for the Press Association in its Special Reporting department. I was
also a sound engineer in the West End theatre, a private researcher and most
recently, before retirement, director of a design and print company. In the year
2000 I was honoured to be voted Mayor of Newtown in Mid Wales.
.
Ripperologist: Are you a family man, Simon?
Simon Wood: I have a wife, Susan, daughter Miranda and two granddaughters, Laura and Emma
Ripperologist: You now make your home in California.
Simon Wood: Miranda married an American, so Susan and I moved here to be with our girls.
Ripperologist: Do you have any pets, Simon?
Simon Wood: Two rescued dogs. Baxter, a Bichon Frise, and Joe, a curious mix of chihuahua, fruit
bat — hence his enormous ears — and Jack Russell terrier.
Ripperologist: Do you have any hobbies? Any you want to tell us about, of course.
Simon Wood: Oh, those hobbies? Well, apart from wine, women and song my main passion is jazz
and classical music. Also photography, at which I am absolutely useless.
Ripperologist: Do you practice any sports, British or American? Do you follow any?
Simon Wood: Definitely not. And apart from the Wimbledon finals I avoid TV sport like the plague.
It’s been rendered unwatchable by sponsorship and all those insufferable pundits
who trot out the same old clichés time after time. My favourite oxymoron is ‘sports
personality’.

Ripperologist: Let us now talk about Jack the Ripper, whoever he was, and the Whitechapel mur-
ders. We have been fortunate at Ripperologist that you have chosen us to publish
your articles on the subject.
Simon Wood: Thank you, too, for publishing me.
Ripperologist: You are no doubt aware that you have acquired a bit of a reputation in
Ripperological circles as a maverick.
Simon Wood: A maverick, eh? Whoopee! Fame at last. Seriously, guys, I’m no maverick. I’m just
trying to cut through all the nonsensical BS that has trickled down to us over the
years and hardened into ‘fact’. It never ceases to amaze me what some people are
willing to believe on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. There appears to be a
deep, dark, primeval need to believe in the Ripper, a bit like the Bogeyman.
Ripperologist: But before we come to that, could we discuss your early years as a student of the
Whitechapel murders?
Simon Wood: I grew up with JtR. He was the creature hiding under the bed, the thing I was threat-
ened with if I didn’t behave myself. I first read Donald McCormick’s The Identity of
Jack the Ripper. It was absolute tosh, but at the time I believed every word. And
then I read Farson and Cullen and anything else I could lay my hands on.
Ripperologist: We have heard that back in the 1970s you were a member of an informal group of
Ripperologists, most of whom went on to become some of the most important and
respected authors and researchers on the subject.
Simon Wood: I knew Don Rumbelow in the 70s. I met Paul Begg, Martin Fido, Keith Skinner and
other Ripperologists in the 80s. We used to hold seminars at a pub in Whitechapel.
I was very honoured to be invited to a tribute to Tom Cullen on 9 November 1988 -
a note to Robin Odell here: I still haven’t received my commemorative tie. We also
appeared together on an LBC (London Broadcasting Company) Radio midnight Jack
the Ripper phone-in.
Left to right: Left to right: Simon Wood, Martin Fido, Tom Ripperologist: You first made your
Cullen, Paul Begg and Keith Skinner. 9 November 1988. reputation by debunking Stephen Knight’s
theories in Jack the Ripper: The Final
Solution. Could you tell us something
about that?
Simon Wood: My first solid interest

in Jack the Ripper began in 1976 with the
serialization of The Final Solution in the
Evening News. I reached the part where
Sir William Gull was employing bunches of
grapes to lure Whitechapel’s ladies of the
night into his coach and remember bursting
into uncontrollable laughter at such a non-
sensical scenario. As I had two weeks’ vaca-
tion coming up, I resolved to research the
Cleveland Street/Walter Sickert/Prince
Eddy/secret Catholic Wedding mystery at
the heart of the story. And the rest, as
they say, is history.

Ripperologist: This is fascinating . Could you tell us some more?
Simon Wood: I had met Don Rumbelow through a mutual friend, and
he was amazingly helpful during my researches. He
introduced me to Tom Cullen, whom I visited in his
Belsize Park flat, and Richard Whittington-Egan,
whom I met with Don at the Witness Box, a pub on the
corner of King’s Bench Walk. Don also introduced me
to Stephen Knight at a meeting of the Crime
Writers’ Association, and very charming he was
too.
Ripperologist: Is it true that Stephen Knight made threats

against you and your family?
Simon Wood: No. In a letter to a friend he did write about

me in less than complimentary terms.
But I don’t think this could be construed as a threat. Anyway,
the first I knew about any of it was about a year ago when Stewart Evans
posted the relevant snippets from Knight’s letter on either Casebook or the
JTR.Forums, I don’t remember which. For me, the most worrisome aspect of the
whole affair was how Stephen Knight’s private letter had found its way into Stewart
Evans’s crime collection.
Ripperologist: It’s been more than thirty years since Stephen Knight published The Final Solution,
which has never been out of print and remains a modest best-seller to this day. In
retrospect, do you think the book has any value at all?
Simon Wood: For all the book’s shortcomings, we owe a big debt to Stephen Knight. He laid the
ground for conducting future research and presented a truly compelling case for the
ultimate solution. It was perfect in its own way and pushed all the right buttons.
When the truth about JtR finally emerges — and it will — it’s going to have a lot to
live up to. If it turns out that Jack the Ripper was Fred from the chip shop down the
road we’re all going to be mightily disappointed.
Ripperologist: We have now published four articles by Mr Simon D Wood. Would you say these arti-
cles constitute a whole or do you think they should be considered individually?
Simon Wood: My last two articles — Smoke and Mirrors and The Macnaghten Memorandum and
Other Fictions — constitute the birth of a ‘whole’.
Ripperologist: Is there a thread, as it were, that runs through all your articles?
Simon Wood: Yes, but I don’t think it will become fully apparent for a while.
Ripperologist: Would you say that your articles are informed by a conviction that the police were
ready to go to any extremes in order to disguise their failure to catch the Whitechapel
murderer?
Simon Wood: No, because I don’t think the police were ‘disguising’ their failure to catch Jack. It’s
more that certain that elements of what might loosely be called ‘the police’ were
disguising the fact that Jack never existed but was being turned to good use.
Ripperologist: You don’t seem to have much respect for the contemporary police.

Simon Wood: That’s not true. I’m certain that the vast
majority were honest, hard-working, dogged
and determined.
Ripperologist: In truth, it would appear that Robert

Anderson and Melville Macnaghten are
among your pet peeves.
Simon Wood: Now you’re talking. They were super

slippery. So was Monro, who always
comes across like a favourite uncle.
Ripperologist: Some people have disagreed violently

with your theories.
Simon Wood: Yes, which is exactly as it should

be. But without wanting to appear
arrogant by saying I’m right, I
would point out that my detractors,
who are legion, cannot offer one single fact or piece
of evidence in support of my being wrong. This is why they so
often resort to derision. I have no ego in this matter, no problem with being
wrong; I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve jumped to the wrong conclusion. But
I do ask to be paid the courtesy of being demonstrated to be wrong by virtue of a
solid fact or two or, failing that, intelligent argument.
Ripperologist: Some people have even attacked you directly. How do you deal with negative
responses of this kind?
Simon Wood: With equanimity. I was given an illuminated copy of Rudyard Kipling’s poem If for
my 10th birthday. Remember? ‘If you can keep your head when all about you are los-
ing theirs and blaming it on you…’. Not all Victorian values are redundant. I have
discovered that the longer I present a coherent argument, the more angry, frustrat-
ed and unravelled these people become.
Ripperologist: Your most recent article in Ripperologist, The Macnaghten Memorandum and Other
Fictions, was the subject of heated debate in several fora.
Simon Wood: The criticism levelled at me over this article disgraced the standards of my youngest
granddaughter’s school debating class.
Ripperologist: Most criticism centred on your interpretation of the article concerning Anderson
published in the New York Times on 20 March 1910. From your examination you have
concluded that the article was based on an interview with Anderson in New York
City.
Simon Wood: Ah, yes. All that was all quite surreal. Never have I seen so many people retreating
into foot-stamping denial. As I admitted in my article, there are only two pointers
to this ‘fact’: Anderson reportedly saying ‘here in New York’ and referring to
England as ‘yonder’. Slight, I concede, but nevertheless valid. I have since been
unable to find any trace of SRA in New York in 1910, but it’s early days yet and I’m
still on the case. There is so much more we need to know.

Ripperologist: It has been said that some reminiscences contained in the New York Times article
about a visit to Broadmoor do not really originate with Anderson, as you assert, but
with the author of the article, a journalist signing himself ‘A Veteran Diplomat’.
Simon Wood: Yes, it was argued that Frederick Cunliffe Owen, the journalist who used the pen
name ‘Veteran Diplomat’, either made it all up in an idle moment or was drawing
upon personal experiences and attributing them to
Anderson. This is a preposterous suggestion, advanced
only because, for diverse reasons, we are asked to accept
unquestioningly that Anderson’s Polish Jew story was the
truth. The NYT article upsets the view that Anderson was
a pillar of moral rectitude and would never knowingly have
told a lie. Now, the reason why Anderson might have want-
ed to tell these anecdotal Broadmoor stories and his
account of Jack the Ripper being committed to this asy-
lum in 1904/5 by virtue of a royal warrant is unclear. But
it has to be borne in mind that there is a long history of the
British and American press reporting very different stories
when it comes to situations involving Anderson. We need to
discover why, not just dismiss these inconsistencies out of
hand because they get in the way of a pet theory.
Ripperologist: It has also been said that the attribution of these reminis-
cences to Anderson through the use of such phrases as
‘said Anderson’, ‘Anderson first mentioned’ and ‘Andersen
next alluded’ might be construed as misleading. Sir Robert Anderson
Simon Wood: There is no reason to believe that the NYT article is anything other than what it is:
an interview, or discussion, call it what you like, with Anderson. Indeed, there are
seven examples of the first person singular subjective personal pronoun ‘I’ and one
example of the first person singular objective personal pronoun ‘me’ in the article.
All I did was present his statements in the most readable manner, jettisoning any
bracketed detail for clarity and all without changing a word of what he is reported
to have said.
Ripperologist: It has been pointed out that a sentence referring to Florence Nightingale
was deleted from a paragraph attributed to Anderson in your article.
Simon Wood: I had to go back to check on this. The part of the sentence I omitted
was in regard to Dr John Meyer. It read: 'he had been an associate
of Florence Nightingale in the organisation of the hospital service
at Scutari in the Crimean War'. My decision wasn't sinister; I sim-
ply didn't think it was germane to the discussion.
Ripperologist: In the three decades since Stephen Knight formulated The Final
Solution and Ripper books became best-sellers, a number of
authors have followed in his footsteps. The anonymous author
of the Diary of Jack the Ripper, for example. Do you think
James Maybrick wrote the Diary?
Simon Wood: No.

Ripperologist: Do you think Maybrick was the Ripper?

Simon Wood: No.
Ripperologist: Have you got any theories about who the author of the Diary really was?
Simon Wood: Yes, but I’m pleading the Fifth Amendment.
Ripperologist: Another author that comes to mind is Patricia Cornwell. Have you read Jack the
Ripper: Case Closed?
Simon Wood: Oh yes. It was truly dire, with not one single redeeming feature that even $5 million
could buy.
Ripperologist: In your opinion, are there any other recently discovered suspects worth considering
further? How about Dr John Williams? Robert Mann the mortuary attendant? The
anonymous author of My Secret Life?
Patricia Cornwell
Simon Wood: To my mind they are all non-starters.
Ripperologist: What do you think of Andrew Cook’s theory that Jack the
Ripper was a creation of the press?
Simon Wood: I agree with Andrew to a certain extent, although from what
I am now learning it appears that the press were not the orig-
inal driving force behind the Leather Apron and Jack the
Ripper scares.
Ripperologist: In your article Smoke and Mirrors in Ripperologist 106,

September 2009, you imply that Scotland Yard’s apparent
pursuit of Tumblety was only a cover for their anti-Fenian
activities. Where does that leave Tumblety as a leading sus-
pect in the Whitechapel murders?
Simon Wood: Tumblety is the most interesting Ripper candidate in

terms of his personal and professional history and I can-
not wait to read Tim Riordan’s new book about him. But
for a number of reasons too complex to discuss here I
remain doubtful he was ‘Jack the Ripper’. I’ll just add
that I find it interesting that George R Sims, who was
handed a scoop by Littlechild, never ran with it, pre-
ferring the drowned doctor right until the end.
Ripperologist: Well, this has been a very illuminating talk. Before we

draw our metaphorical curtains on the gloomy, fog-bound streets of
1888 Whitechapel, is there anything else you would like to add?
Simon Wood: I’d just like to put on record that Jack has introduced me to some wonderful peo-
ple, many of them now friends. I would especially like to mention thank Don
Rumbelow. If it hadn’t been for all his generosity and encouragement all those years
ago I wouldn’t now be sitting here on your sofa.
Ripperologist: Thank you very much, Simon. It’s been a pleasure indeed having you with us.

RIPPING YARNS
A Ripperologist’s
Bookshelf
IN THE HOT SEAT THIS MONTH… SIMON D WOOD
We couldn’t spend time chatting with Simon without enquiring about his
bookshelf...
What is your favourite non-fiction book of all time?
The Western Rebellion of 1549, by Frances Rose Troup (1913). My interest in the Western Rebellion
was sparked by my old friend John Gardner, who in 1967 had pitched a novel to his publisher based
on the incident. Since John was busy with two novels at the time he asked me to do the research
for him. In the event the novel never happened, but I still have all my notes and may one day write
it myself. I am the most non-religious person you’ll ever meet, so I didn’t come down on any one
side. My fascination was with the reaction to the situation by Edward VI’s government, which was
under the control of the Lord Protector, the Earl of Somerset. In the beginning the pro-Catholic
rebels gained the upper hand by laying siege to the city of Exeter. Somerset then engaged the
services of heavily armoured German, Italian and Spanish mercenaries. It was the first time foreign
troops were recruited to fight in England on behalf of the Crown. During their early encounters
the condottieri got trounced by the Devon and Cornwall countrymen. The country lanes were
narrow and the condottieri were easily knocked from their horses and killed whilst struggling to
stand up. Eventually the rebellion was put down through sheer force of numbers and the Book of
Common Prayer completed Henry VIII’s break from the Church of Rome. The first emissaries sent
from London to assess the situation were Sir Peter Carew and his brother, who arrived bearing
documents in a pigskin pouch. To my surprise and delight, when I went to do my research at the
Public Record Office in Chancery Lane I was able to hold the very same pigskin pouch and freely
examine the documents it contained. Try doing that today at Kew.
What is your favourite fiction book of all time?
The Sirens of Titan, by Kurt Vonnegut Jr., a masterful cosmic story featuring
just about everything you can imagine. Fata Morgana, by William Kotzwinkle, a
wonderfully pungent and sexy detective story about fate set in Paris and Hungary
in the 1890s. The Mask of Dimitrios, by Eric Ambler: probably the best ‘detective’
novel ever written.

Who is your favourite author?
Graham Greene.
Do you remember your first Jack the Ripper book?
Donald McCormick’s 1959 The Identity of Jack the Ripper. As I’ve said
elsewhere, absolute tosh, but at the time I believed every word.
What is your favourite Jack the Ripper book?
The Complete Jack the Ripper by Don Rumbelow, because, to quote the
Bard, an honest tale speeds best plainly told. The Ultimate Jack the Ripper
Companion, by Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner is eye-opening and absolutely
indispensable. I never read suspect-based Ripper books because they’re all the
same, except for their bolt-on suspects.
What was the last book you read?
John Connelly’s novel The Unquiet. Very unsettling. Connelly’s got a real
handle on serial killers and the concept of evil.
What book in your collection do you consider a ‘prize gem’ for whatever reason?
Madrigal, by John Gardner. John and I were friends for over 40 years. He was
in a car smash about ten days before his finished Madrigal manuscript was due
at the publisher’s, so I wrote the last two chapters and sent it in on time. John
thanked me in the dedications. He came to fame in 1963 with The Liquidator,
a comic spy novel later filmed with Rod Taylor as Boysie Oakes. When the spy
boom faded in the late 60s John turned to novels about the theatre including
Every Night’s a Bullfight and The Director. In the 70s he returned to the spy
genre with, among many other books, The Nostradamus Traitor, The Garden
of Weapons and a trilogy about the fictional Railton dynasty. During this time
he also wrote two novels whose main character was Sherlock Holmes’s nemesis
Professor Moriarty. Jack the Ripper made an appearance in the first of them. In
the 1980s, John accepted the poisoned chalice of continuing the James Bond
franchise. He wrote about a dozen Bond novels. None of them was bought
by the movie producers due to a clause in their contract which, in the event
of their running out of Fleming titles, gave them the right to create their own scenarios. John
suffered the final humiliation of being asked to write the novelization of some God-awful movie
screenplay. He died, aged 81, in August 2007. For a fuller account of his work see the entry I wrote
on his behalf in Donald McCormick’s The Connoisseur’s Guide to Spy Fiction.

What book, any category, do you find yourself coming back to?
Kenneth Grahame’s The Wind in the Willows. Anthony Hope’s The Prisoner
of Zenda.
Have you ever given up on a book before reading it completely?
Often. If a book hasn’t grabbed me in the first fifty pages, it’s goodnight
Vienna.
Was there a book from childhood or your teens that really

changed your life?
The Amorous Captive, by Hank Janson (1958), best described as stirring

historical pulp. I read it as a boy of thirteen. Here’s the cover. I leave the rest
to your imagination.

Modern-day City of London Police
in modern-day Old Jewry.
Courtesy Adam ‘UXB’ Smith

Ripperologist 112

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ripperologist 112

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RIPPEROLOGIST MAGAZINE

Issue 112, March 2010

Features We would like to acknowledge the assistance given by various

Letters to the City Police: The ‘Prospective Elucidator’

Regulars part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval

On the Sofa: This month — Simon Wood

A Ripperologist’s Bookshelf: Simon Wood

Editorial Team Subscriptions Advertising

Jim Vejvoda's review of The Wolfman, IGN Moveis, 11 February 2010.

Features We would like to acknowledge the assistance given by various

Letters to the City Police: The ‘Prospective Elucidator’

Regulars part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval

On the Sofa: This month — Simon Wood

A Ripperologist’s Bookshelf: Simon Wood

Editorial Team Subscriptions Advertising

Non-Ripperologists probably think that the main aim of Ripperologists is to identify

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 1

3 ‘The Havant Murder’, The Times, 21 December 1888, available at www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18881221.

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 2

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 3

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 4

Mr Hunt’s setting down of a verifiable address and an

Please enrol my name and address as a candidate attempt-

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 5

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 6

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 7

to the weapon with which he

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 8

By this time, it seems, the police had begun to

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 9

I am, dear sir

‘Take no notice of this’ wrote the red pen.

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 10

These dates clearly indicate regular periodic times of homicidal lunacy.

Another spiritual message!

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 11

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 12

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 13

London Metropolitan Archives CLA/048/CS/02 — Box 3.15 Nos. 101-114, 292.

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 14

‘I was called on Sunday morning shortly after 2 o’clock’

Birth and education

1 Ipswich Journal 30 January 1869.

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 15

6 Edward Treves was granted his admission card on 1 May 1860.

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 16

8 Brown’s initiation date is given as 21st January 1868.

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 17

BROWN–APPLEFORD — 21st inst, at Coggeshall

20 The Times – Wednesday 21st March 1877

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 19

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 20

It [the body] was lying in the position described by

Brown’s response to a question put forward by Mr. Crawford: Certainly 30 or 40 minutes.

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 21

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 22

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 23

Lloyds Weekly, 7 October, 1888 showing Eddowes’ inquest

Coroner: Can you tell us what was the cause of death?

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 26

METROPOLITAN POLICE SURGEONS’ ASSOCIATION.

30 Along with Drs Thomas Bond and J R Gabe.

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 27

Ripperologist 112 March 2010 28