Jack the Ripper committed at least 5 murders in 1888-1891 in London (Whitechapel), but more murders are said to have been conducted by him/them. At least 6 additional murders in and around Whitechapel had similar modus operandi in 1888 tot 1891, and should be considered as potentially also the work of Jack the Ripper. The murders have all been committed at walking distance from eachother and the profiles of the female victims are similar.
Jack the Ripper supposedly sent several letters to discuss his crimes, including a graffiti left on a wall near the site where Catherine Eddowes was found on 30 September 1888.
Jack the Ripper’s “Nothing”
Catherine Eddowes was brought in by the police on 29 September 1888, because they say she was found drunk on the streets in the afternoon, at Aldgate street (painting below, left). She did not give her name when taken to Bishopgate policestation (painting below, right), so she was registrered with the text “nothing” where her name should have been.
Around 01.00h at night, she was released, as she was sober. When leaving the station (they say) she did give a name and stated she was “Mary Ann Kelly” (the first name similar to the other victims of Jack the Ripper; and the last name similar to her boyfriend Kelly). I find this odd. Why would she give this name?
Just 45 minutes later, around 01.45h, Catherine Eddowes was found dead and mutilated in Mitre Square by a policeman (Edward Watkins), an officer from the policestation Bishopsgate. She could not have been there long, as witnesses had not seen anyone on the ground shortly before.
Around 01.30h and 1.41h, two times a policeman had looked onto Mitre Square, and both policemen state they saw “nothing”. Also, the two guards from the buildings Mitre Square 3 and 5 claim they saw “nothing suspicious” during the night. Around 01.35h, three men had left a bar called Imperial Club on Duke Street 16-17. They claim they did see Catherine Eddowes at Mitre Square, but while she was having a normal conversation with a man. To be honest, I have my doubts about these testimonies, as dying takes normally more then just a few minutes.
Directly after finding Eddowes body, policemen searched the area around Mitre Square. At 3.00h, officer Alfred Long finds half an apron smeared with blood, on the stairs of the building entrance of Model Dwellings 108-119, Goulston Street, Whitechapel. Later it is confirmed the apron matched the apron of victim Catherine Eddowes. Above the apron on the wall, Afred Long saw a graffiti message painted on the wall in white. Unfortunately, the message was soon after washed from the wall, to avoid unrest in the street, as the message might be interpreted as antisemitic.
The odd thing is, three policemen have written down three different versions of what was on the wall in Goulston Street.
- The Juwes are The men that Will not be Blamed for nothing
- The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing
- The Juws are not the men to be blamed for nothing
There has been much discussion about the difference between the three versions. I find it more interesting to assess what the three versions have in common. All three contain a double negative, which is not standard English. While appearantly the police reports have been somewhat irregular, they all contain the double denial. Why would a “Jack the Ripper” on the run, use unnecessary long (incorrect) sentences, when leaving a blood stained apron? Why leave a message at all?
My thoughts on the subject: 1) The graffiti is either about Juwes or refers to the Freemasons as “Juwes”. 2) The text “are the men” has no value add in my opinion, unless the writer wants to specifically state, this is not about the Jewish people, but rather about a group of men that can be described as “Juwes”. 3) The “nothing” could very well be referring to Catherine Eddowes, as this is how she was described in a police report just hours before. Though not many people could have known about that. 4) If “nothing” refers to Catherine, the sentence no longer is a double denial, but still a denial. They will not be blamed. It is almost a promise.
One way of interpreting the above, paints a rather suspicious picture of the police. They had Catherine Eddowes written down as “nothing” at first. She was in custody during the night she was killed. When they say Eddowes left the police station, she was referred to with a first name “Mary Ann” (note, this is a typical first name for a canonical five victim). Given that Mitre Square was guarded by two policemen and two former policemen that night… and the victim was also found by a policeman… It appears the police played a very central role that night.