Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files (26 page)

For a long time I looked at the possibility that the killer could have been a merchant seaman. I could find nothing to suggest that the police had pursued this specific line of enquiry at the time with any diligence. This was strange and suggested to me that they were perhaps very blinkered in their approach to solving the murders. They should have seen, after the double murders on 30th September that a pattern was beginning to form. In short, since the St Katherine’s Dock and the London Dock were so close to the murder locations, they should have looked at the possibility that the killer could be a merchant seaman. Ships use docks, prostitutes are attracted to docks, and merchant seamen seek out the prostitutes when their boats dock.

It is also a known fact that Whitechapel had more than its fare share of prostitutes. Between 30th September and 8th November police had ample opportunity to explore this line of enquiry in greater detail, had they done so, after Mary Kelly’s murder they would have been in a position to take positive action with regards to this particular line of enquiry.

In view of my suspicions I decided to broaden my lines of enquiry to try to ascertain if there was any other Ripper-like murders in other parts of the world. I came across unconfirmed newspaper reports of a string of murders of prostitutes in Managua, the capital of Nicaragua. These murders supposedly took place within a ten-day period in January 1889. All the victims were reported having been killed and mutilated in similar fashion to the Whitechapel victims. All of the crimes were unsolved.

In addition, I discovered the murder of a female, which occurred in October 1889 in the German seaport town of Flensburg. The reports stated that the victim was killed and mutilated in Ripper-like fashion, with no one being apprehended. The merchant seaman theory was now becoming a reality, with the dates of the murders all fitting into a pattern suggesting the same killer could have been responsible for all the murders, and that killer could have in fact been a merchant seaman.

I then refocused on the Whitechapel killings. My first line of enquiry was to try to establish the details of any boats docked in London Docks and St Katharine’s Dock on the dates of the murders, to see if any of them were berthed on all the murder dates between August and November 1888. These two docks were the nearest to Whitechapel.

After combing through thousands of maritime records I discovered that a German merchant vessel belonging to the Norddeutsche Line and registered in Bremen, named the Reiher was berthed in St Katherine’s Dock on all the murder dates save for September 30th. The reason it was not there on that date was the fact that it had been taken out of service for a time following a collision in the River Thames previously. However, another vessel the Sperber from the same line was there on that date. Furthermore, the Reiher was also there on the date of the Alice McKenzie murder on July 17th 1889. The records also show that two merchant vessels from the same line were also there on the date of the Frances Coles murder 13th February 1891. So now the investigation was moving towards the possibility that the killer could have been a German merchant seaman, but could I identify him?

On visiting the state archives in Bremen, Germany I discovered that all the crew lists for the Reiher and its voyages to London on all of the murder dates were all missing. Now I found this very strange when the archives contained hundreds of records of crew lists for almost every boat that sailed from Bremen, yet these few were missing. I had hoped that I would be able to identify a seaman, or seamen, who were on board that boat when it was docked in London on the dates of the murders. This turned out to be one of a number of instances where important Ripper related documents were found to be missing from official archives.

I then uncovered other murders, which occurred in the USA and Germany, and all took place after the cessation of the Whitechapel murders. They all occurred between 1891 and 1894. All had a very similar MO and fitted into a significant time pattern, all remained unsolved save for one which would become very significant and subsequently lead to a major breakthrough regarding the possible identity of the killer known as Jack the Ripper.

I have set out below the full list of all the murders in chronological order. The reports are as they appeared in the various newspapers of the day. As can be seen none of the dates overlap. This suggests that the same killer may have been responsible for some or all of the murders I have documented. I am fully aware that in some of these murders persons were arrested and interviewed. However, no one was ever charged so the cases were never officially closed, so an open mind must be kept when discussing them, when looking at the full catalogue of the unsolved murders.

Unfortunately, due to the passage of time there were no official police records left on any of the murders. The USA police records were only kept for a period of 75 years and then destroyed. The same applies with regards to prison records.

The full list of dates and locations of unsolved Ripper-like murders is as follows. These include the following details of the first two shown on the list:

** Denotes found murdered in a locked room

The last murder is the most interesting. This occurred on August 31st 1894 and the location was close to the scenes of the Carrie Brown murder on April 24th 1891 and the Elizabeth Senior murder on January 31st 1892. The most significant point in relation to this crime was that the perpetrator was apprehended moments after committing the murder whilst attempting to flee the scene of the crime. He was found with traces blood on his hands. The murder weapon, a long knife with a six inch highly sharpened blade was found nearby, and when examined by a doctor, had traces of what was believed to have been the blood of the victim. When a later search of the suspect’s room was conducted police found a cloth bag, which they suggested was the bag which the knife had been kept in. Also found in the room was a whetstone for sharpening the knife. The suspect had been residing with the victim and her son for only a few days as a lodger. Further enquiries showed that he had been travelling around the New York area as well as other parts of the USA.

The man arrested was later convicted and sentenced to death for this murder. After losing his appeal he was finally executed in the electric chair in Sing Sing Prison on April 27th 1896. The killer’s name was Carl Feigenbaum. He was known to have used several aliases around the country, one of which was Carl Zahn. This is suggested may have been his real name. Other aliases he was believed to have are Anton Zahn, and Carl Strohband. On examining this particular case closely and the antecedents of Feigenbaum and from all the facts I had gathered through my long protracted enquiry into the Whitechapel murders, my suspicions led me to suspect that this man could have been involved in the Whitechapel murders and may in fact have been the elusive Jack the Ripper.

At the time of his arrest Feigenbaum gave his age as 54, which would mean he was born in Germany around 1840. There are entries in the German merchant seaman’s register in the Bremen Archives for a Carl Feigenbaum born 1844. These show that up until 1878 he was employed as a merchant seaman for the Norddeutsche Line when they stopped keeping records. It should also be noted that in 1875 records show he deserted one ship in New York. Whether he then worked under another alias after 1878 or whether he went back to using his own name is not known.

Sadly the entries for this register did not continue after 1878. So we can prove that Feigenbaum had worked as a fireman on German merchant ships owned by the same merchant fleet that operated vessels between Bremen and London at the time of the Whitechapel murders.

Following his arrest in 1894 and subsequent execution in 1896 there were no more Ripper-like murders. From the aforementioned list setting out all the murders, it can be seen the first murder occurred in 1863. By reason of his approximate known birth date this would have put him at age 23 at the time of this murder.

The details of the New York murder of Juliana Hoffman in 1894 for which he was arrested are as follows, and are taken from a copy of the official court transcript given by the appeal court judge, which I purchased from the Court Archives:

“On the night of Friday, August 31, 1894, in a house on Sixth Street in the city of New York. The deceased, Juliana Hoffman a widow fifty-six years of age, was in the house with her son Michael, a boy sixteen years old, in two rooms on the first floor over a store of a building on Sixth Street, near Avenue A, in the city of New York. Carl Feigenbaum a German, who came to this country in 1891, a gardener by occupation, having no family here, and, prior to the homicide, had drifted about in the city of New York and vicinity, occasionally getting employment, but having no steady work, and was poor and often without means. He had lodgings from time to time at various places, sometimes paying in part therefore, and in other cases staying for a few days at a place and leaving without paying the sum agreed. On Wednesday, August 29, 1894, he applied to the deceased for a room, and arranged with her that he should occupy the back room of the two rooms of her apartment for a sleeping room, he to pay therefore one dollar a week, and Mrs. Hoffman was to furnish him breakfast, for which he was to pay her eight cents for each meal. He occupied the back room on Wednesday and Thursday nights, and on Friday evening, about ten o'clock, went to his room, which opened out of the front room, leaving the deceased and her son therein. During Friday evening, while the three were together in the front room, the deceased took from a closet in that room, which was left unlocked, a small pocket book and left the house to purchase some bread for her and her son's supper, and on her return placed the pocket book in the closet again. After the defendant had returned to his room the deceased and her son went to bed, the mother sleeping on a lounge on one side of the room near one of the two front windows, the son sleeping on a couch at the foot of, and at right angles to the lounge. The son was the only person who was an eyewitness to anything, which occurred between the defendant and the deceased prior to the homicide. He was awakened about midnight, or a little after, by a scream from his mother. He then saw the defendant standing by the side of the lounge, with a knife in his hand, facing the deceased, who had partly raised herself up on the lounge. The son kicked at him and got out of bed, and the defendant then turned towards him with the upraised knife. The son fled to the front window furthest from the lounge, got out backward and stood upon the cornice of the building and cried "murder, police." He testifies that he put his head into the room and saw the defendant strike his mother with the knife in the neck. His cries alarmed the neighbourhood, and a policeman and other persons ran towards the house. The defendant was then seen coming out of an alley at the side of the house on Sixth Street, having on a shirt or undershirt and trousers, but having no hat or shoes on and soon commenced to run, but was pursued and overtaken by the officers and brought back to the house and into the room, the scene of the homicide. The deceased was found lying on the floor near the lounge, bleeding from an incised wound in the neck, apparently unconscious, and she died shortly after. A witness who lived in a house overlooking the alley, hearing the alarm given by the son, went to the window of her room looking upon the rear of the house occupied by the deceased, and saw the defendant on the roof of an outbuilding adjacent to the bedroom which the defendant had occupied, from which he clambered down into the alley before spoken of. On searching the alley a short time after the defendant's arrest a knife was found, with which, as was shown, the wound in the neck of the deceased might have been inflicted, with blood stains upon the blade. There was evidence also that there were bloodstains on the hands of the defendant when he was brought into the room after his arrest. In the room occupied by the defendant was found a whetstone, such as was used in sharpening tools, and a blue cloth cover, which was suitable for the covering of the knife found in the alleyway. Neither of these articles had belonged to the deceased or her son. The door of the closet in the front room was found open and the pocket book was lying open on the shelf. There was little or no money in it the evening before; after it was replaced by the deceased on her return from the baker's, but this was not known to the defendant. There was another large pocket book in a trunk in the room, which contained six dollars, which had not been disturbed. The sole defence was a denial of the identity of the defendant with the person who stabbed the deceased. The defendant was sworn as a witness in his own behalf and his story was that a man named Weibel with whom he had become acquainted, and who knew that he had a room in the house of the deceased, attracted his attention by a whistle after the defendant had gone to bed and he thereupon went down and let him into the house, and that both then got into the one bed, and that the witness was awakened by a scream from the deceased, and finding that Weibel had left the room, he got up, and supposing that Weibel had attempted to escape by the alley, he went out on the roof and into the alley to find him, and in this way he accounts for his being in the alley and going into the street. The improbable story of the defendant, as to which there was no corroboration, as might be supposed, was not credited by the jury. It is unnecessary to go into further detail of the evidence. There can be no reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the crime charged and except for the grave character of the case, we should have deemed it quite superfluous to call attention by an opinion to the facts, which justified the Conviction
.