THE RIPPER IN RAMSGATE. The Whitechapel Murderer and a Seaside Town.

[Chris Scott]

I am just putting the final touches to a new book:

THE RIPPER IN RAMSGATE.
The Whitechapel Murderer and a Seaside Town.

This has been commissioned for sale in a local shop and so will not be generally available (in fact initially only about 50 will probably be printed) but I will be posting the Intro and first 2 chapters here. It is a fairly modest work (about 25000 words) and although it deals with the links with the town where I live some of the research and content may be of more general appeal.

Chris Scott


THE RIPPER IN RAMSGATE.

The Whitechapel Murderer and a Seaside Town.by

Christopher Scott

(c) 2008


Contents:

Introduction.

1) - A Brief Background

2) - The Royal Road lodger

3) - Mary Kelly's Boyfriend

4) - The Main Suspect's Brother

5) - The Bohemian Artist


Introduction:

Jack the Ripper? In little old Ramsgate? Surely not! Well, no, actually. Let me make it clear from the beginning that I am not unveiling some previously unknown suspect who lived in the back streets of Victorian Ramsgate. The current list of suspects - reckoned by some to number nigh on 170 - is surely long enough, even if this very list does not - as I often suspect - actually contain the name of the man who committed the Whitechapel murders in 1888. No, the present modest volume is a look at some of the surprising links between this East Kent town and the notorious events of that dark autumn.

There can be few people who do not know the name, or more accurately nickname, of Jack the Ripper. It has become a byeword for something dark, terrible and inhuman lurking in the shadows at the edges of our collective memory. But we must be careful to distinguish from the outset between the myth and the reality. The Jack of myth has become a bogeyman, a melodrama villain - more a presence than a person. But the killings of 1888 were committed by a person of flesh and blood, a man (almost certainly) who carried on his life, went about the streets of London, may have worked, may have been married. The fact that many appalling killers - those who would undoubtedly be dubbed "fiends" or monsters" by the more colourful sections of the press - have often turned out to be markedly ordinary and unremarkable in their outward lives, should be an object lesson on not necessarily looking for Jack as a ravening beast or a barely human monster.

Let us get some basic questions out of the way - clear the ground, so to speak. Did Jack the Ripper come to Ramsgate or ever live in the town? I do not know, but think it highly unlikely. Such indications as there are - principally his ability to evade detection and capture, which was seen at the time of the murders as almost supernatural - would argue the case for a man who knew the area intimately and very probably lived there. The most basic question of all would seem to be, of course, who was Jack the Ripper? I do not know, and doubt that I will ever know, certainly not on the basis of the currently available evidence. It may surprise some that the identity of the killer is not the most important question in the eyes of many researchers into the case. The study of East London in the 1880s opens many door to areas of knowledge that one might otherwise not touch upon. Putting a name to the killer is only one question among many and, to a number of students of the case, not a particularly important one.

Finally, a most significant note. I said above that the man who committed these only too real deeds in 1888 was a creature of flesh and blood going about the streets of London. We must never forget that so too were his victims. The desperate poverty in which they lived and the degrading mode of life into which they were forced make grim reading indeed. If you read about the lives and backgrounds of the five generally accepted victims - Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes and Mary Kelly - and those of the other possible victims - Emma Smith, Martha Tabram, Alice McKenzie and Frances Coles - it is sobering reading indeed. We must never forget in the heat of the hunt for Jack the Ripper that these women, and thousands more nameless women like them - lived this life of appalling penury and degradation in what was at the time the wealthiest and most important city in the world.

[Chris Scott]

Chapter 1:
A Brief Background.

It would seem that it should be a comparatively easy task to sum up briefly the basic facts of the Whitechapel murders of 1888. But this is decidedly not the case. The events of that autumn 120 years ago have been so overlaid with theorising, speculation and alleged conspiracies and cover ups that it is daunting for the newcomer to the case to know where to start. If one takes a dispassionate look at those events and what has been written about them, it becomes apparent that the known and verifiable facts concerning these murders are remarkably thin on the ground, while the theories and speculative solutions to the "mystery" would sink a battleship under their accumulated weight. And this flow of works on the subject of the Whitechapel murders shows no signs of abating - indeed, the present work is, by definition, adding to it! Why this particular case should have such an enduring appeal (if such a word can be used in discussing a series of appalling murders) is a complex question in its own right but one that cannot be answered here.

We must first address the question of the name under which this famous case is known to posterity. You may have noticed that in the main title of this book I have used the word "Ripper," but in the subtitle I refer to the "Whitechapel murderer." This distinction is both important and quite deliberate. In the press coverage of the earlier murders the unknown killer was known by a variety of epithets, including the Whitechapel fiend. Another early name for the killer was "Leather Apron." This had its origins in a story which came allegedly from street women in Whitechapel who claimed that they had been terrorised by a nameless man known only by the nickname deriving from the garment that he always wore. The description given of him in the press was a mixture of an anti Semitic caricature and a pantomime Demon King. Whether such an individual ever existed in the form described is highly dubious, but the story was taken seriously enough to result in the arrest of a man name John Pizer who was allegedly known by this very nickname, an allegation which he himself denied. Pizer was released and no further allegations against him surfaced. Indeed, Pizer took legal action for defamation of character against various newspapers.

The name that will be forever attached to this series of events appeared first in a letter which was dated 25 September 1888 and was received at the Central News Agency on 27 September. This is commonly known as the "Dear Boss" letter from its opening words and ended with the now immortal phrase "Yours truly, Jack the Ripper." Four days later, on 1 October 1888, the same Agency received a postcard, also signed "Jack the Ripper" which was couched in the same taunting terms as the "Dear Boss" letter. Although there has been some discussion on the matter, it is my opinion that an examination of the handwriting shows beyond reasonable doubt that both the letter and the postcard were written by the same person. Of course, the crucial question is this - was the writer of these two communications really the killer, as he claimed? The consensus of current opinion is that the writer of these two documents - and, indeed, the flood of later letters bearing the infamous signature - was not the killer and that there is no information revealed within the communications which would point incontrovertibly to the murderer being their author. A long standing theory is that these two original documents - and, hence, also the notorious name itself - were the product of a journalist and were intended to "spice up" the ongoing story by attaching to it a resounding and chilling nickname. If this were the case, the hack in question could little have guessed just how long the name he invented would resound! It may be significant that these first two documents bearing the name "Jack the Ripper" were sent not to the police but to a news agency. If the author were a journalist, he would, presumably, know where to send these missives to gain the maximum impact and publicity.

Central to any consideration of the Whitechapel murders are the killing of five women between 31 August and 9 November 1888. These five murders occurred as follows:
31 August 1888 - Mary Ann Nichols
8 September 1888 - Annie Chapman
30 September 1888 - Elizabeth Stride
30 September 1888 - Catherine Eddowes
9 November 1888 - Mary Jane Kelly
These five woman are commonly known collectively as the "canonical victims," the widespread opinion being that they were the killed by the same hand and form the core of the series of crimes committed that autumn. This is not say that this listing and this conclusion are universally accepted. There are students of the case who believe that Elizabeth Stride was not a victim of the same killer, and there are those who champion the idea that Mary Kelly died by a different hand. The arguments in favour of either proposition are complex and cannot be gone into in detail here. Suffice it to say that the opinion that these five women died by the same hand is widely held and has been so since very shortly after the events in question.

The body of Mary Ann Nichols was found in Bucks Row at approximately 3.45 on the morning of 31 August 1888 by a workman named Cross. He was joined by another working man named Paul and the police were soon in attendance. Nichols's throat had been cut down to the vertebrae and it was discovered at the mortuary when her body was prepared for examination that there were a series of injuries to the abdomen as well. Nichols was buried at the Manor Park Cemetery on 6 September 1888.

Annie Chapman's body was found in the yard at the back of 29 Hanbury Street. The discovery was made just before 6.00 a.m. by John Davis, a carman who lived in the third floor of No. 29. Chapman's body lay to the left of a the steps that led down into the yard. The throat was again cut very deeply - some accounts say that the body was almost beheaded. The abdominal injuries were extensive: the intestines had been lifted from the body and the uterus and its surrounding structures had been removed and were missing. Annie Chapman was buried, also at Manor Park Cemetery, on 14 September 1888.

In the early hours of 30 September occurred the two murders often referred to as the "double event." (This term comes from the postcard mentioned above received on 1 October.) The first victim found was Elizabeth Stride, who was Swedish by birth. Her body was found at approximately 1.00 a.m. lying inside the entrance to a yard known as Dutfield's Yard. This lay to the side of 40 Berner Street which was the site of a "Working Men's Educational Club." This premises served a clientele of predominantly Jewish socialists and radicals. The steward of the club, Lewis Diemschutz (the spelling of his name is disputed) returned from his labours as a hawker of cheap jewellery, and drove his horse and cart into the opening of the yard. He discovered the body lying near the right hand wall leading into the yard. Stride's throat was cut, deeply on the left side, more superficially on the right side. Uniquely among the five principal victims, there were no abdominal or any other injuries on Stride's body. The usual interpretation of this fact is that the murderer was interrupted by the arrival of Diemschutz and fled the scene, his blood lust unsated. Stride was buried in the East London Cemetery on 6 October 1888.

If this speculation about the killer being thwarted in his designs is correct, he did not have long to wait before finding another victim. At 1.45 a.m. Police Constable Watkins found the body of Catherine Eddowes in a secluded corner of Mitre Square. Only 45 minutes earlier Eddowes had been released from police custody at Bishopsgate Police Station, having been arrested earlier in the evening for being drunk and disorderly. The murder of Eddowes was the only one of the murders committed within the jurisdiction of the City of London (as opposed to the Metropolitan) police. She was, incidentally, the only victim whose body was initially found by a police officer and not a member of the public. Eddowes's injuries were extensive and shocking. The throat was again deeply cut to the bone and there were appalling mutilations to the abdomen. As in the case of Chapman the uterus had been excised and taken away. The killer also removed and took Eddowes's left kidney. There were also extensive mutilations to the face, there being cuts to the eyelids, the cheeks and one ear. Eddowes was buried in Manor Park Cemetery on 8 October 1888.

The last, and arguably the most controversial, of the five central murders took place on 9 November. I dub this murder controversial for a number of reasons. It was the only one of the five that took place indoors - indeed, in the victim's own home - as opposed to on the street. Also, the extent and nature of the mutilations were so appalling that it set the murder into a class of its own, almost as though the murderer's unfathomable motives were given full reign. Thirdly, there are a number of students of the case who believe that the victim in this last case, Mary Kelly, died by a different hand. Lastly, the victim herself has evaded all attempts to research her life and remains a complete mystery in terms of her background. The bare facts are as follows. Kelly lived at Room 13 Millers Court, a single room at the back of 26 Dorset Street. Until a few days before she had lived with a man named Joseph Barnett, but the couple had argued over Kelly's offering shelter to another woman. Barnett left but stayed in touch with Kelly and, by his own account, continued to give her money when he could. She was in arrears with her rent and it was this which occasioned the finding of her body. At approximately 10.45 a.m. on 9 November, Kelly's landlord, John McCarthy, who ran a business from and lived next door. sent an employee of his, Thomas Bowyer, to see what money he could get from Kelly. After knocking with no reply Bowyer looked in the window and saw Kelly's body laying on the bed. The mutilations to Kelly's body were so extensive that she had been virtually dissected. The throat was again cut very deeply and the body cavity virtually emptied of its contents. Areas of the body had been defleshed and these pieces of flesh and other organs had been placed around the bed and on the table next to it. The only organ specifically listed as missing in the post mortem report is the heart. Kelly was buried in the Catholic Cemetery in Leytonstone on 19 November.

These, in very brief outline, are the five killings central to any consideration of the Whitechapel murders. A number of other murders have been put forward - both at the time and since - as possible victims of the same killer. Two of these precede the main five and two of them occurred afterwards.
3 April 1888 - Emma Elizabeth was attacked by, on her own account, a gang of youth who attacked her and caused severe internal injuries. She survived the immediate attack but died of peritonitis on 5 April.
7 August 1888 - Martha Tabram was found dead on the landing of a building in George Yard. She had been subjected to multiple stabbings, possibly with two different weapons but there was no deep cutting of the throat and no incised mutilations.
17 July 1889 - the body of Alice McKenzie was found in Castle Alley. She had been stabbed in the throat and there were shallow wounds to the abdomen.
14 February 1891 - the dying body of Frances Coles was found in Swallow Gardens. She died very shortly after being found. Her throat had been cut. A man she had spent time with shortly before her death, Thomas Sadler, was strongly suspected of the murder, and, by some researchers, still is.

Those are the very bare facts of the murders themselves. Of course, contemporary documents contain considerably more detail but much of this consists of witness statements and, as such, are open to varying interpretations. The principal forms of documents produced at the time were police reports, including witness statements, post mortem reports and the proceedings of the various inquests. There were basically three repositories of these documents - the Metropolitan Police, the City of London Police (involved because of the location of the Eddowes murder) and the Home Office files. The depredations of time, human acquisitiveness and mundane routine housekeeping have meant that many of the documents that related to the case longer exist - or, more accurately, are not known to exist in the public domain. Some who favour various conspiracy and cover up theories relating to the murders have proposed that key documents have been deliberately removed to conceal the real identity of the killer, but I know of no convincing evidence that this was the case. For those who wish to examine in detail what remain of the official documents relating to the case the best source, in my opinion, is the "Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook" by Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner, a priceless resource for the researcher.

The vast weight of Ripper related literature (including my own modest efforts!) emanate with more or less relevance from this comparatively cache of documents. The sheer number and range of Ripper based works is both bewildering, especially for the newcomer to the case, and amazing in its longevity and tenacity. Barely a year goes by (and 2008 has already had its crop!) without some new revelation or solution. Of course, it is possible to become too sceptical of new literature relating to the events of 1888 and run the risk of missing some truly groundbreaking new evidence. But I would warn those keen to read more about the Ripper that the literature is most decidedly like the curate's egg - good in parts!

So where does the present work stand in relation to this vast output on the subject? It is definitely a "niche" offering, and I say that not out of false modesty but so that false hopes will not be raised. I do not offer any solution as to the identity of the Whitechapel killer. In my opinion, none of the men whose stories will be discussed in the following chapters was the killer of any of the women named above. It is more in the nature of an exercise to examine how pervasive the subject of the Whitechapel was, and has remained, in that connections with this series of brutal killings in the East End of London have resonances even in a small, quiet (well, most of the time!) seaside town in Kent. I hope that the stories that emerge will be of interest both to residents and those who are attracted to the more obscure byeways of this well known story.

[Chris Scott]

Chapter 2 - The Royal Road Lodger.

Royal Road is a straight road in the Westcliff area of Ramsgate. It contains many fine buildings and runs along one edge of Spencer Square, with which it forms a conservation area. There is one building in Royal Road which bears a blue plaque, as Van Gogh taught there for a brief period in 1876. lodging nearby at 11 Spencer Square. Almost one half of the road, that part facing the square, is made up of one block of houses that form an attractive and impressive unit. The other end of the road consists of a terrace of more modest houses, and it is on one of those that our attention must focus for this story. For reasons which I hope will be obvious I will not be identifying the house by number, as the last thing I would want is to cause the current any unwanted attention.

Having set the scene within the town, let us now look at the background to the Lodger story. This is one of the iconic features of the Ripper case and has arisen in various forms, both fictional and allegedly true. Although the tale takes various forms, these often feature the eponymous lodger, a young man of odd behaviour, whose nocturnal perambulations coincide with the murders. There is often details such as bloodstained clothing and agitated behaviour by the lodger on the day following a murder. Some of these accounts circulated at the time of the murders, others appeared later. The list below, which is by no means exhaustive, gives a brief outline of some of the better known manifestations of this tale:

1) A local East End man named Albert Backert (or Bachert) claimed to have been visited in late 1890 by a respectable, middle class woman who told a very odd tale. About two years before (i.e. in 1888) she and her husband had taken in as a lodger a young man who, although English, spoke French and German fluently. He dressed well in quality clothes, but one coat was found to be stained with blood. The lodger was absent on the night of all murders, not retuning until the early hours of the morning.
Unfortunately, the press accounts do not name the woman - she said she feared the man would seek her out - nor the address where the man lodged. The only information given was the building was a "model" dwelling near Aldgate. The man disappeared from his lodgings just before the Castle Alley murder and there the matter would have rested but the woman saw her lodger subsequently in Commercial Road. She found out where he was living (Backert claimed this was near Aldgate Station) and that he had married since leaving her house. The woman claimed to have met and spoken with his wife, whom she described as "slightly deranged."
As the man was still in the area and due to a renewal of Ripper letters being received, the woman felt obliged to divulge what she knew, or thought she knew. She made it plain to Backert that she feared the man and what he might do and did not want to be interviewed by the police.
Albert Backert is an interesting character in that he was peripherally involved (or involved himself) in the Ripper story on more than one occasion. He was a member of the Whitechapel Vigilance committee and eventually became its chairman. He was involved in the apprehension of a man who attacked a woman hear Aldgate East Station shortly after the Castle Alley murder. Backert was the one who seized his knife, thus disarming him. On 20 October 1888 Backert received at his home address a postcard signed "Jack the Ripper" which accused him of publicity seeking, a claim which may have more than a little truth in it.
This brief version of what is a very lengthy and detailed story raises certain questions. If the woman was so afraid of her former lodger and the possibility of his seeking revenge for any disclosures, why come forward at all? And why leave it nearly two years to reveal what she knew? And why, of all people, approach Albert Backert with this information?

2) Another man who involved himself considerably in the case, and claimed both at the time and for many years afterwards to know the identity of the killer, was Dr. Forbes Winslow. Winslow was a respected practitioner in the field of mental illness, often testifying in court as an expert witness and also running a private asylum. It was claimed that information was given to Winslow by a Mr. E. Callaghan, who in the year of the murders was living at 27 Sun Street, Finsbury Square. This information concerned a man who had rented a room in the house of Mr. and Mrs. Callaghan in April 1888. Unusually for a version of the Lodger story, in this account the man in question is actually named. His name is given as G. Wentworth Bell Smith. Recent research shows that it is highly likely that his surname was actually Bellsmith. This man was a religious obsessive, filling many pages with writings on the subject. He had a large wardrobe of clothes and wore rubber boots over his outdoor shoes which deadened the sound of his tread. Again, this lodger kept very irregular hours and traces of blood were seen in his room. Bellsmith left the Callaghan house about 12 August, stating that he was returning to Canada. But he was seen in the area as late as September 1888. In his conversations with Callaghan he was obsessed with immorality and prostitutes. He also boasted of his great physical and mental powers. Callaghan is quoted in his statement as saying: "Without doubt this man is the perpetrator of these crimes."

3) The next version of a Lodger story originated from a member of the brilliant but decidedly odd Sitwell family. Osbert Sitwell quoted his source as being the artist Walter Sickert, who we will meet in much greater detail later. At some unspecified interval after the murders, Sickert took suburban lodgings in London in the house of an elderly couple. It is believed that this refers to the period when he lodged in Camden. If true, this would refer to 6 Mornington Crescent, his address in the early years of the 20th century. In the 1901 census the house is described as a lodging house whose proprietor was a widow named Louisa Jones, aged 54. Her husband, George John Jones, had died the year before at the age of 58. But this can hardly be the "elderly couple" as Sickert did not take a room there until 1905, after the death of the husband.
However, the story itself states that the couple told Sickert that a previous occupant of the room had been Jack the Ripper. The young man was a sickly veterinary student who, again, kept irregular hours and was in the habit of early morning excursions to but the first edition of the newspapers. His health failed and his widowed other took him back to the family home in Bournemouth. The young man died three months later.
One intriguing footnote to this was that Sickert allegedly wrote the young man's name in the margin of a book but this volume, subsequently given away, was destroyed in wartime bombing.

4) On 16 October 188 there appeared in the press the first accounts of what became a complex story which has become generally known as "The Batty Street Lodger," which I shall try to summarise succinctly. To put the location into context, Batty Street runs south from Commercial Road, immediately to the east of, and parallel to, Berner Street at the southern end of which the body of Elizabeth Stride was found on 30 September 1888. The street had certainly had its share of notoriety in the recent past, for in 1887 the Lipski murder case had occurred at 16 Batty Street. However, the events with we are concerned occurred at No. 22.

In the early hours of the morning of 30 September (the night of the "double event") the landlady of 22 Batty Street, a German woman named Mrs. Kuer, was woken by the return of one of her lodgers. This man subsequently absented himself but left behind a shirt with blood stains which he asked Mrs. Kuer to wash. The man said he was going away but she appeared to believe that he would return. However, within a few days the story started to change. In an interview published in 18 October, the landlady denied that the owner of the short was a lodger of hers but rather was a man who had left washing for her to do and that the blood had got on the garment from a simple accident involving one of her boarders. There was even a letter published on 18 October from one of the lodgers at the house which contradicted virtually all the aspects of the story as it had first appeared in the press. This is, of necessity, a very brief version of this story which rapidly branched off into many sub-plots, including the alleged arrest of the lodger in question. It has also been suggested that there may be a connection between the story of the Batty Street lodgers and the suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety.

The above accounts were, allegedly, true accounts, although all of them, in detail or in toto, have been questioned and have to date failed to lead researchers to materially useful evidence. It is, therefore, ironic that the best known version of the Lodger story was, from the beginning, a fictitious one. The profile it achieved was due to its occurrence, in varying forms, in the field of popular entertainment. The story in question, simply titled "The Lodger" was written by Marie Belloc Lowndes, the sister of Hillaire Belloc. This first appeared as a story in 1911 in magazine form and was published as a novel in 1913. An elderly couple rent a room to a quiet gentleman at a rent which serves to rescue them from financial hardship. Their boarder is of a deeply religious bent, reading aloud from the Bible. He also wanders abroad at night which arouses the suspicions of the landlady. There is a series of prostitute murders in progress, and the landlady becomes aware that the night time wanderings of their lodger coincide with the dates of these murders. It is interesting to note that although the novel was patently based on the Whitechapel murders, the name of Jack the Ripper is not used, the killer in the story being dubbed "The Avenger."

"The Lodger" was certainly successful as a novel, but its fame was heightened some years later when it was made into its first cinematic incarnation by a young director named Alfred Hitchcock. This silent film, of the same name as the novel - although subtitled "A Story of the London Fog" - was made in 1927. Although not Hitchcock's first film, it is regarded as the first "Hitchcockian" film and contains certain innovative touches, such as the famous "transparent ceiling" shot. One interesting note concerns the actor who played the title role, the Lodger himself. This part was taken by Ivor Novello, a great "matinee idol" of the day. It was thought unfitting for such a high profile actor to portray a killer of harlots, and the plot of the film was changed to make it clear by the end that the Lodger was not, in fact, the killer. the role obviously did him no harm, as Novello took the same role in a remake of the film in 1932. This version, known in the United States as "The Phantom Fiend," also starred Jack Hawkins and circumvented the possibility of Novello being the killer by making the murderer his twin brother! Yet a third version was made in the United States in 1944. This version reverted to the original title, "The Lodger," and starred Laird Cregar as the eponymous visitor. A distinguished cast included Merle Oberon, George Sanders and Cedric Hardwicke.

So what does Ramsgate have to offer by way of a Lodger story? Well, to understand the context of this version, we have to take a brief diversion. In February 1894 The Sun newspaper (no relation to its modern tabloid namesake!) published a series of lengthy and extremely detailed articles which claimed to identify the Whitechapel murderer. Although these articles, published between 13 and 17 February, given many details as to the background, character and alleged offences of the man they identify as the killer, they do not name him. However, it is apparent that the person to whom they are referring is one Thomas Haynes Cutbush. He was a certainly an individual of odd behaviour - confined as a lunatic in March 1891, he managed to escape and attack two women. He was recaptured four days after his escape, and confined in Broadmoor where he died in 1903. As an interesting footnote, it was these articles in The Sun newspaper that caused Sir Melville Macnaghten, who became Assistant Chief Constable of CID the year after the murders, to pen a series of notes, commonly known as the "Macnaghten Memorandum." This document, which did not come to public attention until the 1960s, is widely seen as one of the most important contemporary documents on the case, as Macnaghten names three men as possible suspects - M.J. Druitt, Michael Ostrog and Kosminski (of whom much more later.) It should be noted that this document was never intended for publication but was written by Macnaghten as a confidential memorandum within the police papers as a rebuttal of The Sun's identification of Cutbush as the killer.

However, finally, to Ramsgate! In the wake of the aforementioned articles in The Sun a number of letters were written on the subject to that newspaper. On 19 February 1894 the newspaper published the following letter:

ANOTHER YOUNG MAN.
Mr. T.J. Crotty writes from Ramsgate:-
I read with amazement your account of "Jack the Ripper." I had a young man about 27. He came in October 1890 to us and told me and my wife that he was an ex-medical from London, but had evidently led a very fast life. He had two cabmen who drove him about at night, and at last he got a revolver to show me, and I went to his doctor. He was a clergyman's son, and my wife heard him say that he had done something to a woman, and she would not live. He treated three or four patients in my house, and subsequent conduct points to him as being the man. He is tall, with dark moustache, and stays out at night.

We will look at the content of the letter shortly but, first, who was T.J. Crotty? In the index for Death for the appropriate period there are two possible candidates. Thomas John Crotty died in 1900 in Kensington aged 58 and Thomas Joseph Crotty in 1898 in Westminster at the age of 33. The older of these is listed in the 1891 census as follows:

1 Sutherland Place, Paddington
Head: Thomas J Crotty aged 48 born Castle Street East, Marylebone - Foreman tailor
Wife: Julia J Crotty aged 62 born Tipperary - Lodging house keeper
Servant: Mary A Barker aged 16 born London

The other man, Thomas Joseph, is listed in 1891 as the 25 year son of a man named William Crotty living at 100 Wardour Street, Soho, and his trade is given as an upholsterer. As the letter from Ramsgate says that Crotty had a wife, then Thomas John is the more likely candidate.

Neither man has any apparent connection with Kent, let alone Ramsgate. However, when we come to the town itself in the 1891 census, we find two young men of the surname Crotty. The household is listed as follows:

Royal Road, Ramsgate (again I do not think it appropriate to identify the house number)
Head: John A Harvey aged 37 born Hinstock, Shropshire - Ironmonger's assistant
Wife: Jane Harvey aged 39 born Hendon
Stepsons:
William Crotty aged 13 born Kensington
Harry Crotty aged 10 born St Helier, Jersey

The head of this household, John A Harvey is listed in 1881, as an ironmonger's assistant, lodging at 3 Raphael Street, Westminster, at which time he was unmarried. We can trace his marriage to the early part of 1883 in Hungerford, Berkshire when he married Jane Crotty. With regard to the stepsons, William Ernest was born in Kensington in 1878 while the birth of Harry (presumably Henry) is not listed in the England and Wales registers as he was born the Channel Isles.

These family relationships are not easy to untangle but with a little logic this can be done. As the two boys, William and Henry, are listed as the stepsons of John Harvey in 1891, they must have been the sons of Jane Harvey by a former marriage. We saw from her marriage to John Harvey that her former name was Crotty, but this would have been the name of her former husband, not her maiden name. But what relation was she to the Thomas John Crotty, the tailor from Paddington who wrote to the newspaper about their lodger? As he was 48 in 1891 and Jane was only 9 years younger, it seemed very unlikely that she was his daughter in law. The other possibility was that she was his sister in law, having married a brother of his. And this proved to be the case. By going back to the 1861 census we find the name of Thomas's brother:
9 Castle Road East, Marylebone (this serves as a further check as this is the place of birth given for the Thomas John Crotty in 1891).
Head: Thomas Crotty aged 45 born Clare, Ireland - Tailor
Wife: Katherine Crotty aged 50 born Clare Ireland
Children:
Thomas aged 18 born Marylebone - Tailor
Michael aged 17 born Marylebone - Lithographic draughtsman
So Thomas's brother was Michael and when we trace his marriage we find that in 1875 he married at Hendon a lady named Jane Wreford. His full name is given as Michael Joseph Crotty. Again this fits in that the Jane Harvey listed at Royal Road in 1891 is noted as born in Hendon.
So it appears in 1890 that Thomas John and his wife were most likely staying at Royal Road with his sister in law when the mysterious lodger appeared.

As for the content it, like so much of Ripper related documentation, is frustrating by reason of what it does not say. The most notable omission is that the lodger's name is not given, which make any further checks virtually impossible. What we learn of him is as follows:-
In late 1890 he was 27 years of age
He claimed to be an "ex-medical" and came from London
He was a man of some means as he employed two cabmen to drive him about
He had a revolver
He was a clergyman's son
Crotty's wife heard the lodger some he had in some unspecified way done harm to a woman who was likely to die
Sadly, this does not enable us to even attempt an identification of the lodger - there simply is not enough information. And so, it will remain, like other version of the Lodger legend, tantalising but ultimately unprovable.

[George Hutchinson]

Hi Chris.

It's the obvious, and I bet I won't be alone - could you PM me contact details for the shop so I can get meself a copy?!

PHILIP

[Chris Scott]

Hi Philip
many thanks for the message
I have sent you a PM today
Chris

[coral]

Me too, please Chris
Coral

[Chris Scott]

The book now available

THE RIPPER IN RAMSGATE

Hi Folks,
For those of you who have inquired about the book, it is finally available.
This was a commission for a local bookshop and so is only available through them but it is possible to order online.
We have tried to keep the price as reasonable as possible in the present economic climate, so the price is £3.99 and postage is free within the UK.
The bookshop is named Michael's Bookshop and their website is at:

http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/

The specific page to order the book is at:

http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/catalogue/the_ripper_in_ramsgate.htm

If you experience any problems ordering or receiving copies then please let me know
Thanks for you interest
Chris Scott

[jmenges]

Congratulations, Chris!



I'll try to get me a copy!

JM

[Howard Brown]

Senor Scott:

I just purchased it through the link you provided. As we say in Espanol, muchismas gracias.

Hoping that you sell them all,amigo.

How

[anna]

Hi Chris,


"Congratulations on your new book"!!!!


ANNA.x

[Natalie Severn]

Congratulations from me too Chris.I shall be buying the book and hopefully in time for Christmas! The cover looks great.
Norma

[Celesta]

Congrats, Chris. Good luck with it.

Best,

Cel

[Chris Scott]

Thanks folks for the messages

http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/catalogue/the_ripper_in_ramsgate.htm

Below is the cover and the full photo the cover pic was taken from

[George Hutchinson]

Chris - my copy has been ordered but I'm wondering now about the print run. You initially said only about 50 copies. Has this now been extended?

PHILIP

[Chris Scott]

Hi Philip
From the info I received today 20 copies are being printed initially but more will be printed if and when required so there should not be any problem
Regards
Chris