Between 31 August and 9 November 1888, five prostitutes were brutally murdered in Whitechapel, in London’s East End. Their killer was never caught, and is known to us now as Jack the Ripper. Several later murders in the same area might have been committed by the same person.
What you all want to know is this: did Jack the Ripper play chess?
Hundreds of possible suspects have been mentioned over the years: almost everyone, it seems, who was in the right place at the right time, and even some who almost certainly weren’t.
Several of these suspects have chess connections.
First on our list is the artist Walter Sickert. From The (Even More) Complete Chess Addict: ‘According to a well-argued book by Stephen Knight, Jack the Ripper … was in fact the painter Walter Sickert as part of a three-man team. One of the things we know about Sickert was that he was a keen chess-player’.
Sadly, this source is notoriously unreliable. I searched the newspaper archives for any connection between Sickert and chess. All I could find was a critic’s view of a portrait of political activist and atheist Charles Bradlaugh: ‘But the clever artist should have placed a chessboard on the table over which the intellectual face of Mr. B. is bending. He habitually plays chess, I am given to understand, with members of the high aristocracy, and recently checkmated a Bishop.’ This must surely refer to Bradlaugh, who was known to be a chess player, rather than Sickert, although history doesn’t record whether the famous atheist used a bishop to checkmate the Bishop. Perhaps Mike Fox had read a biography of Sickert which provided more information, but I can find no evidence of the artist being particularly interested in chess.
More recently, the crime novelist Patricia Cornwell took up the theory of Sickert being Jack, but I don’t think the evidence stands up.
Number two on our list is none other than Lewis Carroll. We know, of course, that he was a chess enthusiast: you can read more here. I’ve known the compiler of this information, Roger Scowen, on and off for many years: we recently exchanged emails and hope to meet up soon for a few games once it’s safe to do so. But was Carroll Jack the Ripper? To me, it seems like a totally ridiculous suggestion.
Moving swiftly on, let’s visit the Langdon Down Museum of Learning Disability in Teddington – and if you’ve never been there you really ought to. Some of the inmates there at Normansfield were identified by John Langdon Down as having a specific genetic condition which is now known as Down Syndrome. Others, like James Henry Pullen, might now be diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum. Facilities were also available for members of wealthy families with mental health conditions, one of whom, who features, with a mention of his chess prowess, in a display in the museum, was Reginald Treherne Bassett Saunderson. Saunderson certainly didn’t have an intellectual disability, but today he’d probably be diagnosed as schizophrenic. His story is told here.
In this game he was winning most of the way through against a strong opponent, but eventually came off second best.
[pgn]
[Event “Kingstown Society Correspondence Tournament”]
[Date “1903.??.??”]
[White “Saunderson, Reginald Treherne Bassett”]
[Black “Flear, Frederick William”]
[Result “0-1”]
[ECO “C39”]
[PlyCount “68”]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 h5 6. Bc4 Nh6 7. d4 d6 8. Nd3 f3
9. gxf3 Be7 10. Be3 Bxh4+ 11. Kd2 gxf3 12. Qxf3 Bg4 13. Qf4 Nc6 14. Nc3 f5 15.
Be6 Bf6 16. Nd5 Bxd4 17. exf5 Bf6 18. Qe4 Be5 19. Rad1 Nf7 20. Rdf1 Kf8 21.
N3f4 Ng5 22. Ng6+ Kg7 23. f6+ Bxf6 24. Bxg5 Bxg5+ 25. Kd3 Bxe6 26. Nxh8 Ne5+
27. Kc3 Bxd5 28. Qxd5 Qxh8 29. Rhg1 Kh6 30. Qe6+ Ng6+ 31. Kd3 Re8 32. Qh3 Re3+
33. Qxe3 Bxe3 34. Kxe3 Qxb2 0-1
[/pgn]
Saunderson was certainly a pretty good chess player, and certainly killed a lady of, reputedly, ‘ill-fame’, but, born in 1873, he was much too young to have been the original Jack the Ripper.
Let’s try again. Lord Randolph Churchill, Winston’s dad, was certainly a chess player, and certainly an opponent of Steinitz. By all accounts he was a pretty unpleasant and unpopular man, but, although he sometimes appears in lists of possible suspects, there’s absolutely no evidence that he had anything at all to do with the Whitechapel Murders.
[pgn]
[Event “Blindfold simul”]
[Site “Oxford ENG”]
[Date “1870.05.17”]
[White “Steinitz, Wilhelm”]
[Black “Churchill, Lord Randolph”]
[Result “1-0”]
[ECO “C39”]
[PlyCount “65”]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 Qe7 6. d4 d6 7. Nxg4 Qxe4+ 8. Qe2
d5 9. Ne5 Nh6 10. Nc3 Bb4 11. Qxe4 dxe4 12. Bxf4 Nf5 13. O-O-O Bxc3 14. bxc3
Nd6 15. c4 f6 16. c5 fxe5 17. Bxe5 Nf7 18. Bxh8 Nxh8 19. Re1 b6 20. Rxe4+ Kd8
21. Bc4 Bb7 22. Rg4 Ng6 23. h5 Ne7 24. Re1 Nbc6 25. d5 Nb4 26. c6 Bc8 27. Rg7
Nbxc6 28. dxc6 Nxc6 29. Bb5 Bb7 30. Rd1+ Ke8 31. Rxc7 Kf8 32. Rf1+ Kg8 33. Bc4+
1-0
[/pgn]
Finally, meet S Swyer. He played Steinitz in the second round of a handicap tournament at the City of London Chess Club in 1871-72: among the other participants was J Swyer, a first round loser. Tim Harding (Steinitz in London) suggests that the two Swyers were probably brothers, but doesn’t provide any further information. Swyer is an uncommon surname so it’s not too difficult to find out more.
The Swyer family came from near Shaftesbury, in Dorset. Walter Swyer and Sarah Lush (Buckland) Swyer had a daughter, Sarah, followed by seven sons. Walter and Robert, John and George, James and William, and, as was the custom in educated families at the time, their seventh son was named Septimus. Let’s get J Swyer out of the way first. John was a bank manager who spent most of his life in Dorset. James was a chemist and druggist, living in Bethnal Green in London’s East End at the time of the 1871 census, so it must have been him, rather than John, who played chess at the City of London Chess Club.
S Swyer, then, was Septimus. In 1871 he was a General Practitioner, living in Brick Lane, Spitalfields, not very far from his brother Jim. As well as being a GP he specialised in obstetrics and gynaecology.
Both Swyers were placed in Class IV (of V) at the City of London Club, so when Steinitz was paired against Septimus he took the white pieces in both games, but had to play without his queen’s knight.
[pgn]
[Event “City of London Handicap Tournament”]
[Site “London ENG”]
[Date “1871.12.??”]
[Round “2”]
[White “Steinitz, Wilhelm”]
[Black “Swyer, Septimus”]
[Result “1-0”]
[SetUp “1”]
[FEN “rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/R1BQKBNR w KQkq – 0 1”]
[PlyCount “89”]
{[#]} 1. e4 e5 2. f4 d6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. c3 Bg4 5. Bc4 exf4 6. d4 Bxf3 7. Qxf3 g5
8. h4 Bh6 9. g3 Qf6 10. hxg5 Bxg5 11. gxf4 Bh6 12. Be3 a6 13. O-O-O Nge7 14. e5
dxe5 15. dxe5 Nxe5 16. Rxh6 Nxf3 17. Rxf6 O-O 18. Bc5 Rae8 19. Rh6 b6 20. Bxe7
Rxe7 21. Bd5 Kg7 22. Rhh1 Ne5 23. fxe5 Rxe5 24. Rdg1+ Kf6 25. Rh6+ Ke7 26. Bb3
Rh8 27. Rg7 Re1+ 28. Kd2 Rf1 29. Ke2 Rf5 30. Rhxh7 Rf8 31. Rg3 a5 32. Rf3 Rf6
33. Rxf6 Kxf6 34. Rh6+ Kg5 35. Rh3 f5 36. Rh7 c5 37. Kf3 Rf6 38. Rg7+ Kh6 39.
Rf7 Rxf7 40. Bxf7 Kg5 41. a4 Kf6 42. Bc4 Ke5 43. b3 f4 44. Bd3 Kd5 45. Kxf4 1-0
[/pgn]
This game suggests that Septimus was a reasonably competent player, but handicapped by a lack of opening knowledge.
[pgn]
[Event “City of London Handicap Tournament”]
[Site “London ENG”]
[Date “1872.01.??”]
[Round “2”]
[White “Steinitz, Wilhelm”]
[Black “Swyer, Septimus”]
[Result “1-0”]
[SetUp “1”]
[FEN “rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/R1BQKBNR w KQkq – 0 1”]
[PlyCount “73”]
{[#]} 1. e4 e5 2. f4 d6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. c3 h6 5. Bc4 Nf6 6. d3 Bg4 7. Qb3 Na5 8.
Bxf7+ Ke7 9. Qa4 Nc6 10. Bg6 Bh5 11. Nh4 Rg8 12. Bxh5 Nxh5 13. Qb3 Nf6 14. Qxb7
Kd7 15. Nf3 Rb8 16. Qa6 Rb6 17. Qa4 Qc8 18. fxe5 Ra6 19. e6+ Kxe6 20. Qc4+ Kd7
21. d4 Na5 22. Qf7+ Be7 23. b4 Nb7 24. O-O Nd8 25. Qb3 Nxe4 26. Qxg8 Bf6 27.
Re1 Qb7 28. Bxh6 gxh6 29. Qh7+ Kc8 30. Rxe4 d5 31. Re8 Qc6 32. Re3 Ra3 33. Rae1
Rxc3 34. Rxc3 Bxd4+ 35. Nxd4 Qxc3 36. Nf3 d4 37. Qe4 1-0
[/pgn]
It was much the same story the second time around, but here the game was truncated when Swyer, in a difficult position, hung a rook.
Swyer was a colourful character whose life was not short on controversy. In 1861 a cat, allegedly belonging to his neighbour, broke into his shop and shattered all his medicines, including a bottle of Godfrey’s Cordial, but the narcotic had no effect on the feline intruder. He sued for damages, but his neighbour claimed it was a different moggy and the case was thrown out.
His first wife died in 1874 and he remarried in 1880. It was stated his second wife’s husband was still alive (it seems he lived until 1912) and she was tried for bigamy, but acquitted.
In 1888 he was still in the same area, but in 1891, shortly after the last possible Ripper murder, he suddenly emigrated to the USA. He certainly had financial problems, but who knows?
Dr Septimus Swyer was in the right place at the right time, had the required medical knowledge, and left the country in a hurry. Only circumstantial evidence. Was he Jack the Ripper? Unlikely, I would have thought, but at least, unlike our other four chess-playing (or perhaps not in the case of Sickert) suspects, a possibility. I guess we’ll never know.
Sources:
There’s a lot more about Swyer as a Ripper suspect (but do bear in mind the proviso at the top of the first post) at:
Dr Septimus Swyer + proviso – Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums
A lot more again here from a direct descendant (one of his sons emigrated to Australia) at:
Septimus Swyer (hibeach.net)
Photographs of James and Septimus Swyers taken from family trees at:
Genealogy, Family Trees and Family History Records online – Ancestry®
Photograph of Lord Randolph Churchill from Wikipedia.
