Mrs Woolfe murder in 1891?

[CJ Thompson]

In 'The American Murders of Jack the Ripper', R. Michael Gordon refers to a Ripper style murder of a 79 year old woman, identified only as a Mrs Woolfe, which supposedly occurred on August 7, 1891. He says that it was reported by the police as a 'copy-cat' murder and presumably he too would hold the same view as he claims his alleged Ripper, George Chapman, was murdering women in the US at the time.

I have seen a few brief references in some posts here but any searches I do on the issue only seem to return results relating to Virgina Woolfe and her supposed Ripper connection.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

[lynn cates]

who's afraid?

Hello CJ. Is this the one?

(From a Newark, Ohio newspaper.)

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

I am tempted here to think of the Lodger's landlady. However, I won't go into anything about this being an attempt to shut her up because she knew too much.

Mike

[kennyo]

I am tempted here to think of the Lodger's landlady. However, I won't go into anything about this being an attempt to shut her up because she knew too much.

Mike

the more a look into the Ripper case and study this incredible casebook the more I'm inclined to think that there was more than one Jack.

[lynn cates]

Jacks

Hello Kennyo. If by that you mean that there were many murders improperly grouped together, then I would say you are making a wise observation.

Of course, from the media's point of view, such a scenario is much less interesting than the one that brought most of us to the case.

Cheers.
LC

[kennyo]

Hello Kennyo. If by that you mean that there were many murders improperly grouped together, then I would say you are making a wise observation.

Of course, from the media's point of view, such a scenario is much less interesting than the one that brought most of us to the case.

Cheers.
LC

Lynn,

The theory I am leaning towards is Prince Albert Victor and his partner in crime, (I think) James Kenneth Stephen. Everything is there if you pit the two of them together, there are too many flaws in the argument if you point the finger at only one of them. Two... and it all fits, motive, conspiracy, a little madness, violent tendancies against women and of course the necessary means to elude capture with a little help from certain 'friends' within the establishment. Eddy is known to have connections with the East End and there is no doubt he learned the butchering of an animal on the many hunts he enjoyed in Hyde Park and St James's Park which were in fact huge wooded areas back then. Although many Ripperologists will pick holes in the theory, the holes they pick can be easily explained by two words - cover up.
No fingers were pointed at Eddy during the time of the killings. It's not surprising because the establishment had absolute power to cover up scandals using whatever means were necessary, including murder. Some of the unconnected murders not attributed to 'The Ripper' were alledged to have been carried out by agents of the Palace to silence certain individuals who were making their mouths go, even demanding a little hush money to seal their lips. One only has to look at the murder of Princess Diana, (shock horror) to see the power that the Establishment has. Whilst wholly unconnected to the Whitechapel Murders I suggest you take a look at a book quite honestly called. "The Murder of Princess Diana" by Noel Botham to see how the Establishment works. It goes on today and there is no doubt it went on during the Autumn of Horror in 1888.
Indeed when Doctor Thomas Stowell published an article in the Criminologist in 1970 suggesting the involvement of Eddy in the Whitechapel murders it caused quite a sensation.
Two days later he was dead.
Look at the holes in the theory of Eddy and Stephen and tell me if those holes could have been conveniently created up by someone with an enormous amount of power, more than the police for example. Dr Gull, the medical council of both Eddy and James Stephen would appear to perhaps have held the key in his documents which were at one time ere held at the New York Academy of Medicine. The Academy politely explained that Dr Gulls notes did not contain any reference to Eddy or James Stephen, they did however point out that some of the dicumentation could have been misplaced . Strange but true! Makes you think!!!

[CJ Thompson]

Hello CJ. Is this the one?

(From a Newark, Ohio newspaper.)

Cheers.
LC

Aha .... yes, I presume that must be the source of the reference in the book. It clearly seems to have been a complete fabrication on the pat of the American reporter or else a genuine error in the transatlantic transmission of some other piece of news.... I wonder what the original source of such an error might have been. Is anyone aware of any items in the English press that might have got later confused?

I would add that the fact that R. Michael Gordon references the supposed murder as an established fact doesn't speak highly of him as an investigative writer. He clearly didn't bother checking out the article in the other available sources.

[lynn cates]

absent

Hello Kennyo. It seems to me that the Prince has been shown--definitively--to have an iron clad alibi for the 5 canonical WCM.

And if the other chap were involved, why the mutilations?

Just curious.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

investigation

Hello CJ. You are absolutely right. Investigation requires checking and rechecking--not to mention a healthy dose of skepticism.

Cheers.
LC

[kennyo]

Hello Kennyo. It seems to me that the Prince has been shown--definitively--to have an iron clad alibi for the 5 canonical WCM.

And if the other chap were involved, why the mutilations?

Just curious.

Cheers.
LC

Lynn.,

Not exactly iron clad, the alibi's came from the establishment. My point exactly, on the occasions Eddy was not able to be there it was Stephens who commited the murders, that's how the mutilations were said to be different.

Kennyo

[lynn cates]

why

Hello Kennyo. Yes, I see what you mean. Of course, the alibi was established by a researcher.

I can also follow your thinking about 2 hands and 2 different kinds of mutilations. But the question needing to be answered is, Why mutilate at all?

But now I fear we are off topic. And, not wishing to hijack another's thread, I must clasp my hand directly over my mouth and be a good chap.

Cheers.
LC

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

I wrote about Mrs. Woolf in my From the News Morgue column in Ripper Notes #24 back in October, 2005. Here's an updated version from my files.

Largely forgotten is the 7th of August, 1891, attack on Gertrude Catherine Woolf, or Woolfe (also given as Wohler for some obscure reason), a 78 year old widow born in Prussia but living at 25 Canon Street Road, St George’s in the East, London, with her son and daughter-in-law. Woolf was described by the press as being the Ripper’s thirteenth victim.

According to her daughter-in-law Mrs. Woolf was a sickly woman who, two years earlier, had suffered from a severe case of influenza and “since then had been queer in the head.” Mrs. Woolf had been feeling particularly ill for the past two weeks and got up shortly before 11 P.M. on the night of Thursday, 6th of August, and complained of headache. She reportedly said: “I will go out for a minute or two, and will come back almost immediately.” However, the old woman failed to return and it wasn’t until 1 A.M. on the early morning of the 7th that the police informed the family of the attack.

Mrs. Woolf stated that she walked up Cannon Street Road as far as Cable Street then down Cable street until she reached Dellow Street Court. At a place immediately opposite the Dellow Street school, she said, a man suddenly, and silently, rushed at her flourishing a large knife, or razor, and attacked her. She stated that she saw the glint of the weapon and had just enough time to throw up her arms to protect herself. She received a slash to her left wrist and then a deep slash to her throat before her attacker ran off in the direction of the Vestry Hall, Cable Street.

Mrs. Woolf described the man as: “stout, tall, dark, and about 30 years of age, dressed in dark clothes. He was wearing a short jacket and black felt hat. His moustache and beard were black.”

It is unclear whether Mrs. Woolf died of her wounds and, in fact, it seems likely, given news reports, that she actually survived. As of Monday, the 10th of August, she was described as being “fairly cheerful,” although still in critical condition, while the very next day it was reported that she “continues to improve, and there seems little doubt now that she will recover.” It is also unclear whether there actually ever was an attack on her or whether Mrs. Woolf had in fact attempted suicide.

The police felt that the blood evidence (only one large pool was found) indicated attempted suicide rather than a struggle with a knife wielding assassin; and friends of hers stated that “she had been very strange in her mind for some time past, and they inclined to the belief that the case is one of attempted suicide.” The razor, which was the weapon used, was found at the scene of the attack, and it was believed to have been owned by Mrs. Woolf’s son, John, a 36 year old picture dealer (as from the 1891 census but described as a Prudential Life Assurance Company Agent in news reports) although this was never proven. It was also pointed out that her life was insured for £30, with her son as beneficiary, and, being old, she was thought to be “aged and feeble and with no interest in life.” Her plan, it was felt, was to cut her own throat in the street so as to make it look like another Ripper murder and thus secure the insurance money for her son.

Against this theory, however, stands the opinion of Dr. Edward Cecil Williams, the attending physician, who felt that the character of the wounds indicated an attack by some other party, rather than suicide. It seems clear that wounds to Mrs. Woolf’s arm were defensive in nature and it is hard to believe that this woman would have understood the makeup of such an attack to the degree that she would know to fake these in order to add authenticity to her tale. It was also suggested, by the American press, that the London police had no hope of solving the attack so they wanted to sweep it under the rug by labelling it a suicide attempt.

In the end a likely candidate to be her assailant, if indeed she was assaulted, remains her own son who may have owned the razor used and who obviously stood to gain by her death. It is interesting to note that although Mrs. Woolf was able to give a description of the man and stated that she could recognize him again she also stated that she could not say what type of knife was used against her as it was “too dark to see.” This, of course, may mean nothing considering the sudden nature of the assault. This attack was never solved.

Wolf.

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Wolf. Thanks for that. That clears up any potential confusion regarding this matter.

Thanks, also, for presenting both sides.

Cheers.
LC

[kennyo]

Hello Kennyo. Yes, I see what you mean. Of course, the alibi was established by a researcher.

I can also follow your thinking about 2 hands and 2 different kinds of mutilations. But the question needing to be answered is, Why mutilate at all?

But now I fear we are off topic. And, not wishing to hijack another's thread, I must clasp my hand directly over my mouth and be a good chap.

Cheers.
LC

2 mutilations (not disputed) = 2 sets of hands. Why mutilate? Place yourself into the head of a fox as it enters a hen hut and embarks on a frenzy of killing.
The two killers were madmen, look at The Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe. He averaged 27 blows from a hammer with each victim, why bludgeon, why mutilate. As normal people we ask the questions but we must adopt the mindset of the fox and the killer.

[CJ Thompson]

To Lynn Cates: Thanx for your useful input...

Kennyo: I am just a newbie here and forgive me if I am getting things wrong but it seems to me that you are in the wrong thread... I asked a very specific question about a particular subject and, unless I am missing something, your posts are not on point... perhaps you misunderstood the original question.


Wolf Vanderlinden : Please excuse me not addressing your post earlier... please put it down to a newbie misuse of the system rather than total stupidity. I think you have tied up a little loose-end that was troubling me.....

John Thompson