Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files (17 page)

In today's criminal justice system the Bail Act 1976 first granted the police powers to use the “
Delayed charge bail procedure”
, otherwise known as “
police bail”
. This is where a person has been arrested for an offence, interviewed and released on bail to return back to the police station. This process enables police officers to conduct further enquiries into the offences and to prove or disprove matters raised by the suspect during the interview. The police today are also able to attach conditions to this type of bail. If a person having been granted bail by the police to return back to a police station fails to do so the police have a specific power of arrest.

This “
police bail”
process is different from the process known as “
police station court bail”
this is where a person is formally charged at a police station and given bail to appear at a Magistrates’ court at a date and time in the future and was also in use in 1888.

There was no legislation in place for the police to grant bail under the “
delayed charge” (police bail)
process in 1888. As there was no power for the police to grant bail under this process there could be no power of arrest for anyone failing to return. So this clearly negates the suggestion that Tumblety was later arrested for failing to return on bail.

In Victorian times the word “
Charge”
had a slightly different meaning and interpretation. To make it easier to understand with regards to criminal offences today, when a person makes an allegation against another or reports a crime the person making the complaint is today known as “
The complainant”, “The victim”
or
“The injured party”
.

In Victorian times a person making a criminal allegation against another was commonly known as “
The Prosecutor”
and the complaint they made was known as a “
Charge”
. When a person was arrested the officer would either say “
I charge”
you or “
I arrest you”
with_____________________ In the case of police officers detecting offences by means of their own investigations when arresting a person they would still use those same words.

If an accused person whilst under arrest and in custody made any admissions or volunteered any verbal statements regarding the allegations these would be recorded and used in evidence. As previously mentioned no formal interviews would take place following an arrest. The evidence to support the “
Charge”
would not be tested or challenged until the case came before the courts.

Furthermore Tumblety could not have been arrested on November 14th on a warrant for failing to appear as suggested because that date was a midweek date and an arrest warrant clearly stipulates that a person arrested has to be brought before a court as soon as practicable, and not two days later.

The court calendar clearly shows that Tumblety was received into custody on November 7th not that he was arrested on that date as you might expect if he had been granted any form of bail on that date. The court calendar also shows the warrant referred to was a committal warrant and not an arrest warrant.

Another major concern I have with the “Tumblety as possible Ripper suspect” theory is that it is obvious Tumblety had made up his mind to abscond. So having regard to the suggestion that he was out on bail from November 7th and the further suggestion that he was in fact released on “
police bail”
, why did he not abscond then? He would have certainly known the strength of the evidence against him and would have known whether or not it would have been strong enough for the police to secure a conviction, and what length of sentence a court would likely impose on conviction or a guilty plea. Why wait, knowing he had seven days in which to disappear? Another question is why, if he had been bailed on November 7th and failed to return, would a court consider further bail, even with sureties?

There is one final piece of evidence, which also points towards the innocence of Tumblety, which without a doubt is important to consider. As has been previously mentioned Tumblety as likely as not was under surveillance by the police from July-November 1888 in connection with the offences of gross indecency, and as a result was charged with three offences. It should be noted that the date shown for one of those three offences was August 31st. That date is significant because it was the date Mary Nichols was murdered. So the question is could he have committed her murder on that same day, whilst under police surveillance and when committing an offence of gross indecency against a young male person? I think not.

Of course there is other additional evidence available which must also be taken into consideration when trying to prove or disprove Tumblety’s likely involvement in the murders. This evidence comes from official police sources and is contained in a Home Office file numbered HO 144/221A49301G, and is with The National Archives. This file relates to the payment of additional expenses to police officers drafted into Whitechapel at the time of the murders. It has been long suggested that a short time after the Mary Kelly murder in November 1888 the police operation in Whitechapel was wound down.

Some researchers suggest that it was because the police knew the identity of the killer and that fact that he could not kill again. This could relate to the Druitt theory, or perhaps Tumblety fleeing the country, or Kosminski being caged in a lunatic asylum.

The truth is that this file shows that the police who were drafted into Whitechapel were kept on at great additional expense long after the Mary Kelly murder. In fact they were not wound down for some considerable time after the Kelly murder.

In July 1889 in Whitechapel there was still a compliment of three sergeants and thirty-nine constables from other divisions outside Whitechapel, that decreased slightly in January 1890 to three sergeants and twenty-six constables and in March 1890 it was reduced even more to two sergeants and eleven constables which may indicate that they clearly suspected the murder of Alice McKenzie in July 1889 as being the work of the Ripper.

This same file contains memos from many senior officers regarding the concerns over the cost of this extra manpower. Clearly this shows that up until then the police did not have any clue as to the identity of Jack the Ripper or any suspicions about any other killer or killers. So that must now eliminate Druitt and Ostrog totally.

All of the above facts and my thorough re-examination into Francis Tumblety suggest to me that he was in custody on the date Mary Kelly was murdered, and could have had no involvement in her murder and therefore was not Jack the Ripper. His status as a Ripper suspect is poorly deserved. The time has now come to remove Francis Tumblety once and for all from the suspect list but I doubt that will happen, despite the overwhelming evidence which shows his innocence.

GEORGE CHAPMAN

George Chapman was a twenty-three-year-old Polish immigrant living in Whitechapel at the time of the murders. It was suggested he studied medicine and surgery in Russia before he came to London where it was reported that he worked as a barber in the East End. Shortly after arriving in London he changed his name to George Chapman from Severin Klosowski his given name.

He was suggested as a likely suspect by Inspector Abberline in later years following his arrest in connection with the attempted murder of his wife with a knife, and the subsequent murders he committed whereby he poisoned a number of women who he had relationships with. These murders occurred long after the Whitechapel murder enquiry had ceased. He was never arrested or interviewed regarding the Whitechapel murders.

Inspector Abberline did admit to there being a problem with Chapman being the Ripper. One major discrepancy is that the people who alleged that they saw a person who they believed to have been Jack the Ripper at one time or another with the victims, all describe men about thirty-five or forty years of age. No witness made the Ripper out to be as young twenty-three as Chapman was in 1888.

Researchers suggest that another reason for Chapman to be regarded as a viable suspect is with regards to his personal characteristics and those of Jack the Ripper. Chapman had a regular job, as it was suggested the Ripper did, since the murders all occurred on weekends. His ex-wife even went so far as to say that he was in the habit of staying out into the early hours of the morning; of course this could have been due to his persistent womanizing.

Chapman apparently had an outrageous sexual drive, if his many affairs and relationships are any guide to go by. The Ripper was according to some researchers a sexual serial murderer, although on the face of it nothing sexual appeared to be behind the murders, other than the mutilations and the supposed removal of the sexual organs.

Criminologists and behavioural experts differ on whether murderers maintain their modus operandi, which means the way they kill their victims. Murderers will change their modus operandi as they gain experience. This is learned behaviour . From my experience I disagree. So I have to ask, if Chapman was the killer did he change from a savage brutal killer to a passive poisoner many years later? I suspect not.

Chapman was hanged at Wandsworth Prison on April 7th, 1903. I would also have expected that if the police suspected him of being the Ripper they would have gone to interview him whilst he was awaiting execution. The visit may or may not have taken place. In any event nothing was recorded. Had they done so and Chapman was the killer he may well have unburdened his conscience before going to meet his maker.

So was Chapman Jack the Ripper? I suggest not. I think like the other suspects mentioned previously he came to notice in later years for killing a number of women albeit by a different method, Inspector Abberline was a well-respected officer and I am sure if he had real suspicions about Chapman then he would have at least been interviewed and this would have been documented. In the absence of this I can only assume there was nothing to suggest he was Jack the Ripper and that Abberline was giving nothing more than a personal opinion as to Chapman’s viability as a suspect years later, and I again reiterate opinions do not equate to prime suspects.

JAMES MAYBRICK

In 1993 a diary purporting to be that of Jack the Ripper surfaced in Liverpool. A former Liverpool scrap-metal dealer by the name of Michael Barrett stated he had been given the diary by a man named Tony Deveraux who had now died. There was no accompanying provenance to prove its authenticity. The diary contained self-confessions by the killer. It was suggested the writer of the diary and Jack the Ripper was James Maybrick, a cotton merchant from Liverpool.

When experts first examined the diary it appeared to be genuine. There were pages torn out and passages scribbled out. However, instead of laying to rest forever one of the greatest criminal cases of the last century, it did the opposite, with some experts saying it was genuine whilst others dismissed it outright as being a forgery. Experts who examined the diary all agreed that the paper was from the Victorian era, and the ink used appeared to have been from that same period.

When Barrett made public the diary he was inundated with financial offers from the media, television and film companies. However, it wasn’t very long before many people questioned its authenticity. This would appear to have put enormous pressure on Barrett, resulting in him going to a solicitor on January 9th 1995 to sign and subsequently release a lengthy and detailed sworn affidavit. This affidavit set out in great detail how he and his wife had set about forging the diary and is reproduced below:

Michael Barrett's Confessions
January 5th 1995

From a sworn affidavit:

I MICHAEL BARRETT make oath and state as follows:-

That I am an Author by occupation and a former Scrap Metal Merchant. I reside alone at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, and at this time I am incapacitated due to an accident, for which I am attending Hospital as an outpatient. I have this day been informed that it may be necessary (sic) for them to amputate two of the fingers on my right hand
.

Since December 1993 I have been trying, through the press, the Publishers, the Author of the Book, Mrs. Harrison, and my Agent Doreen Montgomery to expose the fraud of ' The Diary of Jack the Ripper ' ("the diary")
.

Nobody will believe me and in fact some very influential people in the Publishing and Film world have been doing everything to discredit me and in fact they have gone so far as to introduce a new and complete story of the original facts of the Diary and how it came to light
.

The facts of this matter are outlined as follows:-

I Michael Barrett (sic) was the author of the original diary of 'Jack the Ripper' and my wife, Anne Barrett; hand wrote it from my typed notes and on occasions at my dictation, the details of which I will explain in due course
.

The idea of the Diary came from discussion between Tony Devereux, Anne Barrett my wife and myself, there came a time when I believed such a hoax was a distinct possibility. We looked closely at the background of James Maybrick and I read everything to do with the Jack the Ripper matter. I felt Maybrick was an ideal candidate for Jack the Ripper. Most important of all, he could not defend himself. He was not 'Jack the Ripper' of that I am certain, but, times, places, visits to London and all that fitted. It was too (sic) easy (sic)
.

I told my wife Anne Barrett, I said, "Anne I'll write a bestseller here, we can't fail"
.

Once I realised we could do it. We had to find the necessary materials, paper, pens and ink. I gave this serious consideration
.

Roughly round about January, February 1990 Anne Barrett and I finally decided to go ahead and write the Diary of Jack the Ripper. In fact Anne purchased a Diary, a red leather backed Diary for L25.00p, she made the purchase through a firm in the 1986 Writers Year Book, I cannot remember their name, she paid for the Diary by cheque in the amount of L25 which was drawn on her Lloyds Bank Account, Water Street Branch, Liverpool. When this Diary arrived in the post I decided it was of no use, it was very small. My wife is now in possession of this Diary in fact she asked for it specifically recently when I saw her at her home address XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
.