JACK THE RIPPER

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 57, 9 March 1899, Page 2

JACK THE RIPPER

DID HE MAKE A CONFESSION?

We. have received from a clergyman of the Church of England,, now a north country vicar, says the London 'Daily Mail,' an interesting communication with reference to the greatest criminal mystery of our times—that enshrouding the perpetration of the series of crimes which have come to be known as the 'Jack the Ripper' murders.

The identity of the murderer is as unsolved a mystery as it was while the blood of Ihe victims was yet wet upon the pavements.

Certainly Major Arthur Griffiths, in his new work on 'Mysteries of Police and Crime,' suggests that the police belive the assassin to have been a doctor, bordering on insanity, whose body was found floating in the Thames soon after the last crime of the series; but as the major also mentions that this . man was one of three known homicidal lunatics against whom the police 'held very plausible and reasonable grounds of suspicion,' that conjectural explanation does not appear to count for much by itself.

Our correspondent the vicar now writes:—

'I received information in professional confidence, with directions to publish the facts after ten years, and then with such alterations as might defeat identification.

'The murderer was a man of good position and otherwise unblemished character, who suffered from epileptic mania, and is long since deceased.

'I must ask you not to give, my name, as it might lead to identification'——

meaning the identification of the perpetrator of the crimes.

We thought at first the vicar was at fault in believing

THAT TEN YEAES HAD PASSED yet since the last murder of the series, for there were other somewhat similar crimes in 1889. But on referring again to Major Griffiths' book, we fmd he states that the last 'Jack the Ripper' murder was that in Miller's Court on November 9, 1888—a confirmation of the vicar's sources of information.

The vicar enclosed a narrative which he called 'The Whitechurch Murders: Solution of a London Mystery.' This he described as 'substantial truth under fictitious form.'

'Proof for obvious reasons impossible—under seal of confession,' he added in reply to an inquiry from us.

Failing to see how any good purpose could be served by publishing substantial truth in fictitious form, we sent a representative north yesterday to see the vicar, to endeavour to ascertain which parts of the narrative were actual facts.

But the vicar was not to persuaded; and all that our reporter could learn was that the reverend gentleman appears to know with certainty the identity of the most terrible figure in the criminal annals of our times, and that the vicar does not intend to let anyone else into the secret.

The murderer died, the vicar states, very shortly after committing the last .murder. The vicar obtained his information from a brother clergyman, to whom a confession was made —by whom the vicar would not give even the most guarded hint. The only other item which a lengthy chat with the vicar could elicit was that the murderer was a man who at one time used to be engaged in rescue work among the depraved women of the East end —eventually his victims; and that the assassin was at one time a surgeon.