HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!


Jack the Ripper - The Jewish Butcher

In 1888, the most infamous murders of all time took place in London’s East End. Five prostitutes, destitute women who knew of no other way to survive, were slaughtered and mutilated by a supposedly unknown killer who bears the nickname Jack the Ripper.
The victims are listed below:

Mary Ann Nicholls, Friday 31st August
Annie Chapman, Saturday 8th September
Elizabeth Stride, Sunday 30 September
Catherine Eddowes, Sunday 30 September
Mary Jane Kelly, Friday 9th November


Possible other victims include Martha Tabram who died before Mary Ann Nicholls.  And Frances Coles had been in Middlesex Street the day she died.  She was found with her throat cut in 1891.  Alice McKenzie was found with mutilations that a doctor said were the same as the other victims but that assertion proved controversial.  For our suspect to be her killer, he would need to be out of the asylum on the day she died and the mutilations seemed less frenzied than the other murders but that could be down the fact that the suspect would not have have been in a very good physical condition then.
The police stated that the Ripper was a low-class Jew called Kosminski.  Nobody knows for sure who Kosminski is or what his first name was.  This paper argues that it was a fake name for Jacob Levy.


Leather Apron was the nickname of the Jew, John Pizer who was the first ever Ripper suspect. He was cleared as his alibi worked out.
What about the man who on the day following the killing of Annie Chapman was drinking with a prostitute called Lyons? In a pub called the Queen’s Head, she and a friend noticed a large knife in his trouser pocket.
The man said to Lyons, “You are about the same style of woman as the one that’s murdered.” Lyons asked him what he knew about her. This was his answer, “You are beginning to smell rats; foxes hunt geese, but don’t always find them”. He then left and she followed him as far as the church near Church Street. He turned around and saw her and then he vanished into the street.
It was decided that the man looked like a picture of Leather Apron. The man was Jewish for the Leather Apron image carried a Jewish appearance. Furthermore, where he vanished was very close to Miller’s Court where Mary Kelly was slaughtered by the Ripper.
His answer shows the same liking for leaving cryptic clues that the Ripper had when he left the Goulston Street message which in some ambivalent way pointed the blame at the Jewish men for the killings. It shows that he liked to boast as the Ripper did. This man probably was the Ripper.
The foxes hunt geese but don’t always find them seems to mean the Ripper hunts but doesn’t always get women to kill. He didn’t mean that he was one of the geese and the police were the foxes doing the hunting. If that had worried him, he would have said nothing. He didn't want her talking to the police.
Lyons was a young prostitute. If he wanted to savage her femininity and was frustrated then was he so angry at her that when he got Mary Kelly, another young prostitute, into his clutches that he took it out on Kelly? Kelly was savaged into a mass of flesh.
Lyons could have become a Ripper victim because the Ripper killed at the weekends. The day of her incident with this man was a Sunday.
There are some reasons to think the Ripper was a Jew.

When Mrs Long seen the Ripper with Chapman he kept his back to her and she was clear enough that he was a foreigner - a polite way of saying Jew.

Lipski was a Jew who had allegedly committed murder. The man who physically assaulted Stride the night she was killed called Lipski to another man on the side of the road. Evidently the attacker was calling the other man a Jew - Lipski was a Jewish murderer. Few think the attacker was the Ripper. The attacker was not a Jew for a Jew would not use an anti-Semitic insult.
The killer was more likely to have been the other man. A witness made a report to the press that said that the other man had a knife. The knife wasn’t mentioned in the police report. The other man insulted as Lipski must have had one. He was probably Jack the Ripper.
Later that night, it seems the killer wrote a taunting message about Jewish responsibility for the killings at Goulston Street in chalk on a wall. He left a signature in the form of a piece of Catherine Eddowes apron which was left below the message.
The Lipski episode may have inspired the Ripper to write the Goulston Street message. The coincidence between the Ripper being called a murdering Jew due to him having being seen with a knife and the message appearing later and so soon after, indicates that the Ripper did kill both Stride and Eddowes that night. The message was a taunt because the Ripper had been correctly identified as a Jew near the scene of the murder of Elizabeth Stride.
The killer had been seen that night with Catherine Eddowes just seconds before her slaughter by Joseph Hyam Levy who must have been the Jew who identified him but who would not testify because he was a fellow Jew.
The Jews did not tell on their own so it makes sense to imagine the Ripper was protected by a wider community. This was most likely to have been the Jewish community.

So the Ripper was left without a name.
Despite them the Ripper can be named.
Jacob Levy, an Aldgate butcher, was Jack the Ripper. The Ripper planned his killings in advance for he knew when to clear off before he was found by policemen on their beat. Only a man living in Whitechapel like Levy could have been the murderer.
He was a butcher and we know the Ripper was a butcher for he was too adept at cutting up bodies fast and finding organs such as a kidney.
The Ripper knew Goulston Street well. Levy used to work there at 58 Goulston Street in a butchers.

Jacob Levy had a conviction for theft. During his time at 58 Goulston Street he stole meat from his employer. The killer was a thief for he stole back the money he gave the prostitutes and took Annie Chapman’s rings. He could have stolen clothes and jewellery to make himself look like a gentleman.
He was a Jew. He was so confident that he wouldn’t be caught that he even boasted of his Jewishness when he scrawled that the Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing at Goulston Street. Witnesses described the killer as having a Jewish appearance.
The killer wrote it in chalk and there is a testimony that it was rubbed so and tried to rub it out having had second thoughts. Therefore what the message said was true when it blamed the Jews.
The killer liked to boast. He wrote letters that only the killer could have written and which indicated a Jewish writer.
The killer probably had a wife for he only killed at weekends as if he wasn’t that free. Why did the killer take Annie Chapman’s two imitation gold rings which were made of brass? This may indicate that the Ripper was poor or wanted trophies. But why Annie? He didn’t take the belongings of the other victims. He took Annie’s organs so what would he want with these other trophies? Did he want the rings to give to his wife? The best suspect, Jacob Levy, had a wife. His taking the rings again shows that he thought very strangely and could have written some of the strange letters and the strange message at Goulston Street.
The Ripper was not afraid of syphilitic blood which was a danger with prostitutes. He had to have actually cut himself while mutilating at some stage but even then the blood was possibly dangerous. The Ripper was probably syphilitic for he had no fear of cutting himself or getting syphilis from the victims’ blood. Did he have syphilis already? Was he dying anyway? The answer was yes on both counts for our suspect. The Ripper may have had sex with prostitutes in the past. He acted like a man who thought that whatever he could catch from a prostitutes’ blood didn’t matter for he had already got it from them through sex anyway.
Jacob Levy suffered from syphilis and it took his life in 1891.
Levy didn’t have much respect for fallen women. This was hardly surprising since he probably caught syphilis from Whitechapel prostitutes. The Ripper was good at talking to prostitutes - he was able to charm them and approach them and even make them feel safe with him in the terrifying climate of bloodlust that shadowed the East End. This was a man who had used prostitutes a lot in the past. Something had happened to change his liking for prostitutes into hatred. Levy fits the bill for being the Ripper at this point as with many others as we shall see.
The Ripper would have probably seemed sane – at least some of the time - in ordinary life. What this points to is that the Ripper believed he was doing God’s work and was protected. The reason the police didn’t catch the killer was due to their conviction that he was a maniac. Levy seemed sane most of the time so he would have escaped suspicion.
The Ripper from the descriptions did not look like a man whose health was ruined by syphilis but our suspect got physically seriously ill only after the murders. The Ripper knew he had to pretend at times to be about to have sex with the prostitutes he met and he wouldn’t have got far if he seemed ill. Levy was physically healthy looking at the time of the killings. The Ripper was a very fit man. Levy was described as very healthy and fit and it was much later and near the time of his death that he got very physically incapacitated with his syphilis. The Ripper could climb fences with agility and dodge the police. He could move quickly from one place to another.
The Ripper wasn’t very tall because almost all the women he attacked were between 5 feet and 5 feet 2 inches tall. Annie Chapman was five foot tall, so was Catherine Eddowes. Stride was 5 foot 2 inches tall as was Nichols. Kelly killed indoors was 5 foot 7 but she was attacked in bed when she was drunk and trapped in a corner so a smaller man wouldn’t have been put off by her height. The man seen with Eddowes seconds before her murder was five foot three. So was Jacob Levy.
The Ripper was definitely a stocky man according to witness reports. Levy was stocky.
Jacob Levy suffered from the feeling that he was possessed by forces that urged him to be violent. He heard voices that said religious things to him. There was a religious element to the Ripper murders.
He heard screams in his head. Due to his psychosis, he may have not been sure if he committed the murders or not.
Levy’s conscience tormented him a lot. Had he caught syphilis from prostitutes he might have tried to deal with his conscience by killing them to punish them for being bad women and seducing him. He blamed them to cope.
The killer could have taken an attack of conscience and regret if he tried to obliterate the Goulston Street graffiti he wrote for it stirred things up against the Jewish people. Did conscience speak to him when he killed Elizabeth Stride when he cut her throat? Perhaps he felt so bad that he decided not to mutilate her abdomen but later the madness came over him again and he made up for it with Catherine Eddowes. He strangely took time to pull Mary Ann Nicholl’s clothes back down to spare her modesty.
We have a Ripper letter which shows that the killer was outraged at the thought that he killed a woman who may not have been a whore and shows the signs of a guilty conscience.
He was once prosperous and so would have had nice clothes to put on. The Ripper’s wardrobe ranged from shabby gentleman’s clothes to being well-dressed.
Mary Kelly took her killer back to her room. The killer was beside her on the bed for she lay tight next the partition on the bed to make room for him and she had told him he would be comfortable meaning all night. She was able to speak when attacked so she was not awake and she had some defensive wounds. When she still wasn’t asleep despite having had drink and a late night it may indicate that whoever lay beside her was restless. Levy suffered from sleeplessness according to his wife.
We have to explain the Ripper’s incredible eyesight. Lighting in the streets at night was extremely poor and he kept out of it while killing. A man suffering from sleeplessness like Levy would soon become adept at seeing things in the dark that nobody else would see. What else would he have to do to keep occupied during long night hours? A man like Levy with psychosis might have sharpened senses and hear the police approach. The Ripper was so lucky at avoiding the police there has to be more to it than luck.

Did the man attacking Stride who called Lipski to the murderer really say Levy? Schwartz, whose language was Hungarian and he didn’t have much English might not have heard the man properly. Or the language barrier may have led to a misunderstanding. The man was struggling with Stride at the time and might not have been speaking clearly or might have been tipsy. Schwartz stated that he seemed a little drunk. Lipski was a common insult so Schwartz might have more assumed that he said that than heard him say it. The evidence for holding that he didn’t say Lipski might be seen in the fact that the man he called to was standing at a distance and was just lighting his pipe.
Jacob Levy had to have been questioned by the police at some stage for he was out on the streets after dark due to his insomnia. He had to have been a suspect.
When Jacob Levy died of general paralysis of the insane brought on by syphilis in 1891 on 29th July, the Jack the Ripper case was rapidly closed. This was very odd for many detectives and policemen at the time thought the Ripper liked to take longer gaps between murders and was still killing. This can only be explained by the police having proof that when Jacob Levy died Jack the Ripper also died. This makes no sense as nobody agreed on how many murders were committed by the Ripper then. There were killings still being attributed to the Ripper. The only explanation that makes sense is that the police knew that the Ripper was dead.

Assistant Chief Constable Macnaghten and Chief Inspector Donald Swanson named Kosminski as the Ripper. Sir Robert Anderson didn't name the killer but merely said he was a Polish Jew. 
Anderson stated in late 1889 that they had failed to "find Jack the Ripper." In 1895, Arthur Griffiths stated how his friend Anderson was convinced that the Ripper was a maniac who was put out of bloodthirsty action by ending up in an asylum. This narrows things down and makes Jacob Levy a suspect worth thinking about. Griffiths explained some years later that the problem was how the police were certain who the killer was but had no way of putting him away. "One was a Polish Jew, a known lunatic, who was at large in the district of Whitechapel at the time of the murder, and who afterward having developed homicidal tendencies, was confined in an asylum. This man was said to resemble the murderer by the one person who got a glimpse of him - the police-constable in Mitre Court."
Interestingly an earlier draft of what Macnagten wrote about the Ripper reads, "This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square".
There is no evidence that Aaron Kosminksi who fits some of the information was the suspect they meant. He could not have been for he died in 1919 while Swanson indicates he died soon after the murders. Detective Inspector Edmund Reid agreed.
We believe Joseph Hyam Levy identified the Ripper Jacob Levy at the Seaside Home. It was all very secret so that the Ripper was nicknamed Kosminski. This led to the error that the Ripper was Polish for Kosminski was generally a Polish name.
Most of the information about Kosminksi matches Levy. Nobody makes a perfect match with any suspect so the best match is Levy even though Levy was a Dutch Jew not a Polish one like the suspect was. That could have been an error.
The suspect was insane and had sexual problems. He hated women - especially prostitutes. Like Levy, the suspect was not living alone unnoticed. He lived in the immediate vicinity of the murders. He went to an asylum and died soon after.
Sagat and Swanson both said that there were no Ripper like murders after the suspect went to the asylum.




When Annie Chapman was found dead, a piece of envelope was discovered by her head nearby. It carried a Sussex Regiment seal in blue.


It looked like a piece was torn off leaving only part of the address.


On the front the letter M was written by hand where the address started and lower down Sp which must be Spitalfields. The postmark read London August 23 1888. There was a J.  There was what seemed to be the beginning of a 2 (page 47, The Lodger). So it appeared to be a 2. What if it was a 3?  More about that later.


William Stevens saw Chapman drop her box of pills in Dorset Street, and then she picked up paper from the floor to put two pills in it. He thought this was the same piece of envelope that was found. Chapman had pieces of muslin and cloth in her pocket so why would she need the envelope? Would she really pick a dirty envelope off the floor? Not when she was clean enough to take pieces of cleaning cloth around with her. And why such a small piece? As we will see later the Ripper tore something off it. We can be sure that it was not because he wanted to take it and ended up tearing a piece of it because he couldn’t get a grip on it in an attempt to take it away. That is absurd for he was able to get it out of the pockets so there was nothing for it to catch on to.
Annie Chapman had no place to stay and she would have taken all her pills with her. She needed more than a piece of envelope for holding her pills. Therefore the piece of envelope found was not hers. She carried plenty of cloths with her to use instead. They were found. The Ripper left it as a clue. The man who testified that the piece may have been what she took to wrap pills in had to have been wrong. Nobody pays much attention to little things like that. The Ripper took the paper the pills were in and he took her rings. Two pills were dropped which led to the story that she only took two pills out with her. Inspector Chandler wrote, “Enquiries were made amongst the men [of the Sussex Regiment] but none could be found who corresponded with anyone living at Spitalfields or any person whose address commencing [sic] with ‘J’. The pay books were examined and no signature resembled the initials on the envelope.” He also wrote, “enquiries were made amongst the men but none could be found who are in the habit of writing to anyone at Spitalfields, or whose signatures corresponded with the letters on the envelope.”
The envelope when it was treated this way was regarded as a clue. It shows that the police didn’t believe the solution to the mystery given by the man who said he saw her lift a piece of paper to put her pills in. Perhaps she did lift the piece of envelope. If so then the Ripper found it in her pocket which he ripped open. It is said that the Ripper intended to make her murder look like a robbery which was why he did this. Not likely. No robber goes to the trouble of cutting the victim up and mutilating them.
The police seemingly found the writing on the envelope to have been unusual for you would expect people to write much the same way.  The schools did not produce the variety of handwriting you would see today.


So the writing is a puzzle.  Here is the solution. The Ripper found a piece of envelope in her pocket. He took his pen and wrote his name and address further over to the left. At this stage it overlapped with what was really on the envelope. So he tore a piece of the envelope to ensure that only the J for the name the M for the address and the Sp for Spitalfields would be left. The only person who is a perfect match for this clue was Joseph Barnett of Millers Court Spitalfields the lover of Mary Kelly. He was not the Ripper mainly because he lived a normal life after the murders. But why would it not read 13 Millers Court?  Some think the room number couldn’t have been left out for people came and went all the time but people do leave numbers out.  It depends and Joe had been living there for a while. What the Ripper may have written was Jacob Levy, Middlesex Street Spitalfields. Middlesex Street is not in Spitalfields but in Whitechapel but Spitalfields would still have got to him and he would have received letters in the past addressed to him using Spitalfields not Whitechapel. It wasn’t important. Maybe he put in Spitalfields to avoid giving too much of a scent.

Some say there was a mark that was guessed to be a 2 on the envelope as well (page 47, The Lodger). What if it was a 3 for both numbers have an open circle at the top? Jacob Levy lived at 36 Middlesex Street. Why was no Mr or Mrs written on the envelope? Professionals would put in one of these words where applicable. They are missing because the Ripper wrote a clue on the envelope. The Ripper due to his insanity and the euphoria he experienced when he glutted his urge to gut prostitutes felt that nothing could hurt him. That was why he was so daring and confident.
If the envelope was a clue pointing to 36 Middlesex Street, Spitalfields, then Jacob Levy was indeed the Ripper.




The killer cut Elizabeth's Stride's throat in Aldgate and then fled to Aldgate.

After killing Stride, the Ripper would have taken the direct route of Commercial Road and keeping west and then walked left to enter Aldgate High Street. Ten or fifteen minutes would have got him to the next crime scene, Mitre Square, where he killed Eddowes. Now her death took place only maybe 45 minutes after that of Stride. The Ripper, we know, at this stage wouldn’t kill just anywhere. He had chosen the killing site on a map. So he had to get to Mitre Square and talk a prostitute into going into the Square with him. This took time unless he had already set a date and time with Eddowes or unless he was very "lucky". But in any case the Ripper needed to be there as early as possible.
If you draw a straight line from the Stride murder site to that of Eddowes you can work out the quickest way from the first to the second. The killer passed Middlesex Street.


Did he go to Middlesex Street to get his knife for it seems he may not have had his knife when he killed Stride? That done did he then kill Eddowes after taking just a short walk from Middlesex Street?
The knife Stride was killed with was a shorter knife than that used on any of the others.  When he killed Stride if he used a knife it was her knife or his own that he carried with him for self-defence.  It may be that he didn't mutilate Stride because he didn't have the right knife.


The Ripper perhaps carried one knife when he was hunting. Stride was relaxed with him so he had time to get his favourite and usual knife out if he wanted. He didn’t have it with him. He took the murder weapon with him.  Then he went and got his usual knife.  Later he murdered Eddowes with it. 


He was carrying a bloody knife and needed to get to his lair or get rid of it fast in case he was searched.


Middlesex Street would have been the ideal place for the Ripper to keep his knives. The Ripper made it quickly away from the scene of the Stride murder to where he killed Eddowes and Middlesex Street was between the two spots tempting us to believe he stopped on the way to where Eddowes met her death to get a new knife and wash his hands and perhaps change his shirt as well. The Ripper would have known that blood could be seen on him or on his cuffs and witnesses did see him with Catherine Eddowes. He would have needed to take every conceivable precaution that night.
In the last hour of Elizabeth Stride, the Ripper let his knife be seen by Israel Schwartz.  Schwartz either saw nothing odd about the knife or in the panic he didn't notice if there was.  He knew from the police reports published in the papers about what kind of big scary knife they associated with the Ripper and what he was holding up was not it. It is safe to assume what was seen was an ordinary knife so the Ripper probably did use a different knife on Stride.


Middlesex Street is in Aldgate but more about it later. The night Catherine Eddowes was murdered was a very wet night and yet she went towards Aldgate instead of trying to go home or to find a friend to take her in. When Elizabeth Stride’s body was found some time before, she was found to have been soaked to the skin. 


Why did Eddowes hang around so much at Aldgate and close to it as her time on earth drew to a close? Jacob Levy lived at Aldgate. It looks as if she intended to meet him. At 8.30 pm she caused a drunken disturbance outside number 29 at Aldgate High Street. She was held in a Police Station until 1.00 am. Instead of turning right to go home she went back to Aldgate. She was slain in Mitre Square and last seen by the three witnesses including Joseph Levy who had been drinking in the imperial Club, 16-17 Dukes Place Aldgate.


Did Eddowes intend to meet a man from Aldgate who had a house there who she thought could give her a roof over her head? She would have known about the empty houses in Mitre Square that they could use or shelter in. She believed he lived nearby and trusted him especially when she would have heard the whistles and cries of murder in the street after the discovery of Stride’s body. She may have thought he lived in the Square. The Ripper may not have asked Eddowes to turn her back to him to lift her skirt for sex so that he could grab her round the throat from behind. He may have just grabbed her once she went in front. She was taken by surprise so how did he earn her trust? I think it is because he was seen as a local as in living in Mitre Square or adjacent to it.

We know that Catherine Eddowes behaved strangely the night of her murder. Despite the murder of Elizabeth Stride which she must have heard about she still went with a client. She knew the man or did he come across as a man of faith?  There is reason to think the Ripper was religious. What may have given her additional assurance was seeing that Joseph Levy and possibly the two men with him may have seemed to know the man.  Some feel Levy always knew more about the killer than he let on the papers highlighted that.  And the men were Jews and if the man she was with a Jew and made no effort to give her any warning she could have felt safer.
Catherine Eddowes was murdered by a man who lived in Aldgate. She knew the man. Had the man been from anywhere else it would have been strange if he had agreed to meet her in Aldgate. She wouldn’t have met him unless there was nothing suspicious about him. This was a woman going into dark Mitre Square with a man while the cry had gone up all over Whitechapel about the murder of Elizabeth Stride. This eliminates a lot of Ripper suspects who would have been so insane or dangerous that she would not have met up with them. Jacob Levy was sane a lot of the time. He was able to work. He even cried about the terrible things he felt inspired to do.
She believed she knew the Whitechapel killer. She said that but that was more likely than not to be just drunken talk. She didn’t know him when she went into that corner of Mitre Square with him to meet her death.


The Ripper’s lair was probably his own home for after the previous killings the cheap lodging houses were all searched by police. Two hundred of them at least were searched following the killing of Annie Chapman (page 58, The Lodger). The ideal lair would be a house with a butcher’s shop attached or a butchers shop. Then the killer could hide the stolen organs among the meats.
Ripper suspect Jacob Levy lived in Middlesex Street where he worked at number 111, which was a butcher’s shop. This was the ideal street for being the Ripper’s lair and there are many indications that it was indeed his lair.
There is more, Detective Constable Robert Sagar stated, 'We [the City Police] had good reason to suspect a man who worked in Butcher's Row, Aldgate. We watched him carefully, there is no doubt that this man was insane, and after a time his friends thought it advisable to have him removed to a private asylum. After he was removed, there were no more Ripper atrocities'. This is very likely to refer to Jacob Levy who worked there as a butcher. Levy was living with friends when he was committed. Levy himself said that he should be committed for he had violent impulses. The fact that the man was watched at work might explain why no crimes happened during the surveillance. Levy wasn’t committed until several months had passed since the final Ripper murder so he might have been unable to kill for the police were keeping a close eye on him. It shows that he was not so insane that he couldn’t work. This was true of Jacob Levy before his mental deterioration worsened.


Jacob Levy resided in Middlesex Street Aldgate.

Of the first four Ripper victims, the site where Chapman was killed was the second nearest to Middlesex Street. The Ripper didn’t even wash at the tap where there was a butcher’s leather apron. So he refused to do what he needed to do. Why? That the Ripper didn’t want anybody to think the apron may have been his may indicate that his workplace or home wasn’t very far away. The killer must have preferred to have blood smears on his person which should have been washed off to taking a chance with the apron for some reason. He did not want the police to start looking for a butcher either.
If she had all her pills with her, did the Ripper take them thinking or hoping they might have been syphilis medications? We know our suspect had syphilis!

The Ripper seems to have killed Stride and went to his lair to get his regular knife and went out and dispatched Catherine Eddowes and then returned to it. And then he left it again to plant a false trial.


Eddowes was the one killed closest to where our suspect lived - Middlesex Street.


She was found mutilated.  A policeman checked Goulston Street and saw nothing.  Then shortly after he retraced and found an apron piece that was not there previously.  Graffitti accusing the Jews of the crimes was found written in chalk above it most likely by the killer.  The apron piece was cut from Catherine Eddowes apron.

There can be no doubt that the killer took a piece of Eddowes apron intending to use it later to leave a false trail away from his lair.


 It seems he felt that was necessary as he had been seen with Eddowes near the square.


If the killer was Jacob Levy of Middlesex Street then he had only a hundred metres to get home or to his bolt-hole.


He could have been there and out again to plant the apron piece. He went back home to think about where to put it. Levy worked in Goulston Street so Goulston street would have come to mind for him. The Ripper wanted to mislead the police but at the same time give a clue. He had confessed to being a Jew on the graffito. Was he trying to say something by choosing Goulston Street as where he would leave these clues?

Mitre Square wasn’t far from Middlesex Street. It would have been suspicious under the circumstances, especially with Stride after having been found murdered, if a man from further away had been soliciting. The police were questioning all men seen with women and so the killer knew he should hide in his lair. But he still left to it to kill Eddowes and to plant the apron piece in Goulston Street.  The lair then was close by when he could take that risk.  The risk must have been very important.


It was necessary to plant the apron in Goulston Street to make it seem that the Ripper fled in a different direction to the direction he really used. The Ripper fled from the Mitre Square carnage of Eddowes to his lair in Middlesex Street. He must have done for he had to go through Middlesex Street to get to Goulston from Mitre Square and we know he had to stop somewhere on the way to tidy himself up and get cleaned which was why over a half hour after killing Eddowes the apron piece and the graffiti in Goulston Street had still not appeared. Logically we see that he must have had his lair on Middlesex Street. He wanted the police to think he dumped the apron piece on his way further into the city while in fact his lair was Middlesex Street. He knew that as soon as he would get off Goulston Street that the apron piece could have been found quickly.  The lair being a short distance away is the only explanation.

In summary, the Ripper wouldn’t have gone far from his lair to plant the fake evidence at Goulston Street. He couldn’t – not after two murders. Middlesex Street would have made an ideal lair for him.
If you think the unlikely, that the Ripper dashed from Mitre Square to Goulston Street then remember that Middlesex Street was between them but closer to Goulston Street.
The Ripper only had a short distance to go that dangerous night to and from Goulston Street. There were too many police about to go any further and if he had been able he would have planted the apron piece further away. He planted the apron piece there to make it seem like the Ripper had gone the opposite direction of Middlesex Street. Then he returned to his lair.


Middlesex Street was between Mitre Square and Goulston Street with Goulston Street and Middlesex Street being very close together. That says it all. It gets better. The Street connecting Middlesex Street and Goulston Street was a smaller street called New Goulston Street. The apron piece was found just three doors away from where you leave New Goulston Street into Goulston Street. The small side street New Goulston Street was the route the Ripper took from his lair in Middlesex Street because the other routes Wentworth Street and Whitechapel High Street were simply too well lit and swarming with police for they were major streets. Goulston Street itself was a major Street so the Ripper didn’t want to stay on it too long. He didn’t have far to go to plant his fake evidence and that was how he planned it. To get out of Goulston Street again the Ripper had to return to Middlesex Street through New Goulston Street. It was the only way to avoid the busier and more important roads. No suspect explains why these routes were chosen better than Jacob Levy.
Two of the murders, Eddowes and Kelly, were nearest Middlesex Street. The other murder sites don’t seem to worry about any vicinity or proximity. Coincidence? No. When the two most daring murders the Ripper committed seem to be centred about the Middlesex Street area it may indicate he lived there. That was his lair. You feel safer the closer you are to your lair. Some would say Stride was a risky murder. Not when the killer had scared the witness Schwartz off and when there was another man for the blame to be put on. Middlesex Street is nearly half way between the Eddowes and Kelly murder sites. Eddowes’s was a daring murder for it was the one the Ripper went furtherer with in relation to mutilating the woman out doors when police were going to and from. Kelly’s was daring for the woman was slain despite the killer having been watched going to her room by a witness. The Eddowes murder is the most daring of all and it took place so near where our suspect lived and when the police were already scouring the streets for the killer after the Stride murder. That has to say something.


If the Ripper didn't live in Middlesex Street that would be surprising.


There is an alleged FM scrawled in blood plainly to be seen in the photo of Kelly’s murder. The F doesn’t show up clearly in the oldest photos and may not exist. But the M is a different story.
The M was clearly written on the wall in Kelly’s blood. Is this confirmation for the M on Eddowes face? Is it telling us what street the Ripper lived on? Jacob Levy lived in Middlesex Street.
If there was an FM written on Kelly’s wall, did it stand for From Middlesex meaning From Middlesex Street? When three places, the Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly sites, where we know the Ripper was at work are so close together chances are he’s living close to all three.
The man who saw the suspect with Mary Kelly shortly before she was murdered, George Hutchinson, believed he saw the same man on Middlesex Street. And Jacob Levy lived in Middlesex Street. He lived there with a man called Isaac Barnett. Mary Kelly plied her trade as a prostitute at Aldgate (page 70, The Complete Jack the Ripper).
Catherine Eddowes had an ^ shaped incision cut on both sides of her face below her eyes. This shows the killer though he was rushing went to the trouble of making these marks. It was dark and he needed to be in the shadows for there were police about. He must have struggled to see what he was doing. So why did he make the marks when it was so difficult? They were made to say something. Were they arrows pointing in the direction where the killer lived? No – they don’t look like arrows. He was in the mood for being arrogant that night as we know from the message he left later at Goulston Street as a clue. Those who favour the Jew Aaron Kosminski as the Ripper might see the ^ as a hint of the A for his first initial. It would have been too bold to actually put in the missing stroke to make a proper A. But this like the arrows would also be a pointless clue.

The marks look like an M that isn’t put together in case its too obvious that its an M. The M is most likely to refer to the street where the Ripper lived than his initial. There are fewer streets that start with m than men with an initial m. The M interpretation is the most likely. Our suspect lived in Middlesex Street. Were the two marks making up an M for Middlesex?
It is tempting to believe that Mary Kelly who walked the Aldgate streets was slashed so much about the face for the Ripper had often seen her there. There was something about her face that he hated. He also knew Catherine Eddowes who haunted the area too and cut up her face but not to the extent that he did Kelly’s.

The main details in the Daily News of Friday 19th October 1888 are as follows. A John Lardy with two friends followed a strange looking man from near the London Hospital on the 18th October who didn’t like them following him. He hid in a doorway at the Pavilion theatre and came out when he thought they had gone. He seemed to be keeping his right hand in his coat pocket as if holding something very important there. He bought a newspaper and read the notices in a shop window very carefully. He then went to the Aldgate direction where Jacob Levy lived. He got to the corner of Duke Street which leads to Mitre Square. Then he turned when he noticed they were still following him. He walked back to Leman Street and then he reached Royal Mint Street and into a house on King Street. He came out in disguise and looked to be about forty to forty-five years old and looked like an American and was wearing a false moustache and had long black hair and was about five foot eleven. The article stated that the man may have been the one arrested at Bermondsey.
The man was disguising himself so not too much can be paid to his appearance. The right boots could make him taller too. And it is only assumed that he was the same man arrested later on.
The man was intending to go to Aldgate where Levy lived and because he was being followed he went somewhere else. He didn’t go up Middlesex Street in case he was being followed but went on further just in case. Then near where Eddowes was killed he turned and went in a completely different direction. There can be no doubt that Aldgate was his real direction.
Was this the Ripper? Possibly. Does this story give us the answer to the question of what burned in Mary Kelly’s grate? The Ripper’s disguise?


Number 36 was the residence of Jacob Levy in 1888.

Number 36 Middlesex Street, is what you find along the line if you draw it from where Catherine Eddowes was killed and where her apron piece and the chalked message were found in Goulston Street.


We know the killer was trying to tell us something by killing according to a pattern on a map.


Had this pattern been discerned in time, the murder of Catherine Eddowes could have been averted. By then, the killer had struck at three places and by working it out on a map one could see where the fourth murder was going to happen. The killer laughing that nobody had seen the pattern and taunting the police would have told us where his home was.


The line starts with Eddowes who had symbols that make an M – M for Middlesex Street? – carved into her face and ends with her apron and a clue left by the killer about who he was. The apron piece was purposely cut from the apron and discarded with the intention of dumping it at Goulston Street. Why take the time to cut a piece of apron in the darkest part of Mitre Square when the whole apron could have been taken which would have been easier?


Why would you dump the apron piece in a public place where a policeman could find you easily?


Why dump it at all?  The Ripper was trying to leave a false trial and to say something as well.


The apron in Mitre Square and its missing piece in Goulston Street were meant to make a line. In that way, Eddowes is the beginning and the end of the line.


The Ripper left a message in chalk at Goulston Street just above where he dumped the piece that the Jews are not to be blamed for nothing where it is found so that it can be a clue that he wants to point to what kind of man he is. He left the apron piece to tell the police, “Yes, I want to want to tell you where I live or what direction my lair is in. And I will but I will not make it too obvious for you have to work it out yourselves. I have made two bars of a cross, two lines, and I am making a third that will show where I really live if you can solve the puzzle.” He admitted to being a Jew. And he admitted to being more than that and it is only the year 2006 that this truth has been rediscovered.
The fact that the street map we have was not meant to be accurate matters not. The killer had this map and treated it as if it were accurate.
I make no apology if this is bizarre. It is an attempt to get into a mind that worked in bizarre ways.
For the first time since the murders, a suspect with a real case for his guilt has been named. A suspect has been found whose likelihood of guilt is far greater than any other Ripper suspect. The close runner-up, Rosyln D’Onston Stephenson, cannot be proved to have been right about his claim that the Goulston Street message was the French word Juives not Juwes for the police missed a dot above the i, He was the first to suggest a pattern for the killings but his deductions were incorrect. He said some things about the killings that were found to be correct but he also said things opposite to them as well so what he got right can be explained by chance. The Maybrick diary has been proved to have been a hoax. Patricia Cornwell despite confidently naming artist Walter Sickert as the Ripper has imagined the Ripper-like images in his paintings and accused him of nearly every unsolved bloody murder that took place in England during his life.


The circumstantial evidence is that the line through Jacob Levy's residence is not a coincidence.

A newspaper in Whitechapel received a letter in October 1888 claiming to be from the Ripper. It was thought to have been intended for Israel Schwartz or Joseph Lawende.
Schwartz saw the attack on Elizabeth Stride but it is known this attack was not down to the killer.
Joseph Lawende saw the killer take Catherine Eddowes into Mitre Square. She was found slaughtered shortly after.
Here is the letter:
You though your-self very clever I reckon when you informed the police. But you made a mistake if you though I dident see you. Now I known you know me and I see your little game, and I mean to finish you and send your ears to your wife if you show this to the police or help them if you do I will finish you. It no use your trying to get out of my way. Because I have you when you dont expect it and I keep my word as you soon see and rip you up. Yours truly Jack the Ripper.

PS You see I know your address
Schwartz and Lawende both talked to the police about the man they thought was the Ripper. The letter was not meant for Lawende because Lawende wasn’t of much use to the police and didn’t do the Ripper much harm. Schwartz was not the man intended because he gave no indication of being able to identify the man he saw at the scene of the imminent murder of Stride and there was no reason to think he saw the killer. Also there was absolutely no doubt that the men there did see Schwartz but here the letter writer speaks as if the man had reason to think that the killer didn’t see him. The men who passed by as Eddowes flirted with the killer shortly before her murder acted as if they thought the killer did see them. This would mean that one of these men was the man intended in the letter.
The man intended had to have been Joseph Hyam Levy who spoke to the police but acted as if he was afraid to say too much. We know he knew the Ripper suspect Jacob Levy. We know that Joseph Hyam Levy behaved as if he recognised the man with Eddowes and tried to get away as quickly as he could from the scene. These coincidences show that the letter was authentic. Joseph Hyam Levy did indeed play a “little game” with the police. The others didn’t. No hoaxer would have written a letter that fits facts that are so difficult to figure out. We must remember as well that Joseph Hyam Levy was very careful after he went to the police as if he were afraid of someone.
The letter is confirmation that Joseph Hyam Levy and the Ripper knew each other. In that case, the Ripper was most probably Jacob Levy. Joseph Levy was the only Ripper witness who seemed to need protection.



If the Ripper murders were not solved by the police, that doesn’t prove that they didn’t know who the Ripper was. It is possible for even the police to know that somebody is guilty of a crime and be unable to prove it. And even more so when you are talking about the nineteenth century! The Ripper murders officially speaking are unsolved. Unsolved crimes are more than possibilities: they are facts of life. But for a criminal like Jack the Ripper to leave no trace of who he was is near-impossible. One of the known 150 plus Ripper suspects was the Ripper. We can be confident that he was most likely one of the obscure and most ordinary suspects. Jacob Levy was an ordinary man. He is a suspect that doesn’t appeal to the sensationalists.
Jack the Ripper and Jacob Levy were one and the same. Case closed.
Works Consulted

Jack the Ripper Casebook – www.casebook.org
particularly http://www.casebook.org/suspects/jacoblevy.html by Mark King
The Crimes of Jack the Ripper, Paul Roland, Arcturus Foulsham, 2006
The True Face of Jack the Ripper, Melvin Harris, Michael O’ Mara Books Limited, London, 1994
The Complete Jack the Ripper, Donald Rumbelow, Star, London, 1979
The Lodger, The Arrest & Escape of Jack the Ripper, Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey, BCA, London, 1995
Portrait of a Killer, Patricia Cornwell, Little Brown, London, 2002
Jack the Ripper’s Black Magic Rituals, Ivor Edwards, John Blake, London, 2003
Jack the Ripper, Scotland Yard Investigates, Stewart P Evans and Donald Rumbelow, Sutton Publishing, Gloucestershire, 2006
Christianity for the Tough-Minded, John Warwick Montgomery Editor, Bethany Fellowship Inc, Minnesota, 1973
Jack the Ripper Whitechapel Map Booklet 1888, Geoff Cooper and Gordon Punter, ripperArt, 2003