Chapter 1

"The murderer strikes again"

This was the headline in almost all the newspapers.
It's been years since the Whitechapel murderer finally ended his atrocity.Living and working at that a place in so much close proximity to the time was terrifying indeed,even for men.As a journalist of the east London Observer,I was at the centre of the events which has caused a widespread chaos within my heart.You will find many reports concerned with the white chapel murders but,the true story begun way back.

On the morning of September 5th, at exactly 6.30 am in the morning of 1873, a police patrolling unit was doing their regular patrolling on Thames without knowing that their regular patrol would turn into something so dreadful.

As they were moving though the river something caught their eye.They were patrolling near the Battersea Pier of Southeast London,when they noticed something floating on the water.They went closer to see what it was.Soon they discovered that it was the left side of a woman's torso.One of the three policemen on board, Constable Richard Fane picked it out of the water.The remains were immediately taken to the Clapham and Wandsworth Union Workhouse, where Dr. Felix Charles Kempster,who was the divisional surgeon at that time, saw them and pronounced that the trunk was dumped in the water ,near about twelve hours prior to the discovery . The police at once commenced a minute search of the river. Henry Locke, a policeman in the employ of the South-Western Railway Company, who, without knowing of the previous discovery, found the right side of the trunk off Brunswick Wharf, near the Nine Elms railway station.This part corresponded with the first part found, it was apparent, that it had been severed with a very sharp knife, and a saw had also been used. Inspector Starkey of the Thames Police took custody of these remains. Soon after a portion of the lungs was found by Inspector Charles Marley, of the Thames Police, under an arch of old Battersea bridge, and the other part near the Battersea railway pier.

The search was now continued for the other parts of the body, and on September 6th the face, with the scalp of a woman attached, was found by PC John Parker off Limehouse . It was evident at a glance that the murderer or murderers had taken revolting precautions to prevent identification, for the nose was cut from the face, but still hung attached to the upper lip. There was a clear mark of a bruise on the right temple, evidently caused by a blunt instrument, and probably was the cause of her death.

As the area was searched several other body parts were found.On September 9 two more portions of the same body were found, the right thigh being picked up in the river off Woolwich , and the right shoulder, with part of the arm, off Greenwich, the latter part being smeared with tar. The left foot, measuring ten inches and three-quarters in length, and ten inches across the instep, has also been picked up near the bank of the Regent’s Canal, off Rotherhithe, and the right fore-arm near the Albert Embankment.

Under the leadership of the Acting Chief Surgeon of Metropolitan Police Dr. Thomas Bond, and the divisional police surgeon Dr. Kempster,the medical officer Dr. Edward Hayden, reassembled the body by sewing it together and preserving the other body parts in spirits of wine.They did their best and hanged the face on a mechanical frame. They even went so far as to stretch the victim’s face over a butcher's block, hoping that it may be recognized by someone whose loved one had gone missing.But they didn't let general people see it.Police only called people whom they genuinely believed could identify this woman.Upon closer inspection the attending Surgeon Dr Thomas Bond reported that the body was hacked indeed but it wasn't brutal.It was a careful dissection.He theorised that whoever is responsible for the act had to have anatomical knowledge.

Dr. Kempster determined that the victim was very likely around 40 years old with short, thin dark hair. One feature they hoped would make identification easier was a burn scar on her left breast.

Dozens of people who were looking for their lost female family member passed through to view the corpse, but no one could be sure that it was who they were looking for,indeed was the face so disassembled it nearly made it impossible to identify. Photos were taken and passed around the city, and a reward of £200 was set, but nearly two weeks passed since that discovery and by September 21, nothing had come of it.

I remember reading the Lancet,a popular newspaper of that time,who were the first to be present on the scene, reported on its article:
“There is very strong evidence that the woman met with a violent death, and that in the first instance severe blows were dealt on the right side of the head with some heavy, blunt instrument; but, in the absence of the skull, it is impossible to determine positively the extent of the injury. It would appear that after the victim had thus been stunned the body was immediately deprived of all its blood by a section of the carotid arteries in the neck, since there were no clots in any of the veins of the body. The tissues were, moreover, divided while they still preserved their vital contractibility, for, according to the evidence of Mr. Kempster, the muscles in the portions of the body that were first examined were fresh and retracted, so that death must have occurred within a very few hours.”

Commenting on the injuries, the Lancet reported that,
"Contrary to the popular opinion, the body had not been hacked, but dexterously cut up; the joints have been opened, and the bones neatly disarticulated, even the complicated joints at the ankle and the elbow, and it is only at the articulations of the hip-joint and shoulder that the bones have been sawn through."

The news was on the headline for quite a few times but the east end had to worry more than just this news.The case was deemed to be an unidentified woman found dead.

The city was taking a turn when the following year in June 1874, another woman's remains were found, but it was missing a head, hands, and feet.Dr EC Barnes reported that,the victims torso was separated from the spinal cord.He also concluded that the body was submerged in lime before dumping in the water.A clear indication that whoever responsible was trying to decompose the body.With no other body parts and no clear evidence of any foul play,the case was never made.As a result this victim was also classified as unidentified woman.

Surely there were no new surprises down the alley,the city went back to its regular .

On 25th September 1884 nearly 11 years later, less than 30 miles away, the police made another discovery,near Tottenham Court Road, in Bedford Square.As we learned from the police and witnesses a man named Charles Fitch found a collection of human bones in Mornington crescent.The remains were taken to Albany Street Police Station.Here the remains were carefully examined by the attending Surgeon.However,no foul play was clarified.

 

On October 23rd,a cart man and a road sweeper made another gruesome discovery among the items they had collected from nearby dustbins in Alfred Mews.It was a skull with its skin still attached to it,and a portion of thigh flesh was also found.

Less than a mile away on Bedford Square,a gardener found a parcel while working and was shocked to find what it contained.The parcel had a woman's arm. This arm had a rather distinctive rose tattoo.After a search the only reasonable information they could gather was that the body parts might have belonged to a prostitute.As they are often known to tattoo themselves.And this particular type of rose tattoo was fairly a common one within them.

Five days later a human torso was found in a brown paper bag by a police constable as he passed 33 Fitzroy Square. The parcel was believed to have appeared somewhere between the early hours of 10:00am and 10:15am.

Evidence was presented in an inquest on 11 November and on 9th December, held at St Giles Coroner's Court. This concluded how the body parts that came from Alfred Mews ,Bedford Square and Fitzroy Square were of the same woman and the bones which were recovered a month prior was from a different female.The inquest proved how the victims were divided by someone who was skilled but not for the purpose of anatomy.I remember me and my colleagues arguing if there was a connection between them.Maybe they had the same perpetrator.But we barely reached anything with the lack of clues and clear evidence.

 

 

At 11th May of 1887,just a little over 11.30 am a parcel was fished out of the water from Rainham ferry by a lighter man called Edward Hughes.Upon discovering the parcel ,Hughes went on to look what was inside and found a torso inside it.He immediately informed the police regarding the matter. The police Surgeon,Dr Edward Calloway reported that the victim was in her early 30s and was well nourished.He noticed that even in this case,the dissection was done by a skilled person.

Search was initiated and the following month on June 5,a thigh was found near Temple Pier Victoria Embankment.Three days later on June 8,the thorax was discovered on Battersea Park.On June 30 ,two parcels containing the limbs were found on Regents Canal.About nearly two weeks later on July 16th the other thigh was also found in Regents Canal. Another police surgeon, Dr. Charles Hebbert,who was an assistant of Dr Thomas Bond examined the remains for clues to the person’s identity, and due to the lack of a head and the long submersion in water, was only able to identify that the victim had been a woman.

Dr.Hebbert in his inquest said , That one of the legs found in July 1887 showed that “garters were worn below the knee, a custom, I believe, more common among the lower than the upper classes, who either wear garters above the knee or suspenders”. In the cases he examined, Hebbert noted that the neatness of the disarticulations he examined demonstrated the skill of a butcher or a surgeon.
The diaphragm was intact; lungs, heart and other thoracic viscera were absent, but liver, stomach, both kidneys and spleen were present. No part of the small intestines from duodenum was found, nor the large intestine except the sigmoid flexure and rectum. In the pelvis were the uterus, vagina, ovaries and appendages and bladder.

An incision had evidently been made from the ensiform cartilage to the pubes. Cuts on the vertebrae were such as would be made by a saw, there were long sweeping incisions through the skin that showed that a very sharp knife had been used, disarticulations were neatly and cleanly done, in each case the joint being exactly opened. The absence of ecchymosis showed all cuts were made after her murder or death.

The doctors could establish that the body was of a female aged over 25 to 35, with fair skin of Caucasian origin and with dark complexion shown by the pubic hair. She had no mark of a wedding ring and her uterus was that of a virgin. She had not borne any child and would possibly have been unable to conceive.

The garter marks below the knee were common among the lower classes. Decomposition had taken place in water and some months had elapsed since her murder or death.

Medical men, including Police Surgeon Dr. Thomas Bond, gave their opinion that a degree of medical knowledge was evident, however, in their view, the body was not dissected for medical purposes. Even the medical knowledge, no special knowledge of anatomy was shown, the cuts just indicated a practical skill in amputating limbs at joints and making clean sweeping skin cuts; such skill would be gained by a butcher or hunter. Doctors believe that any surgeon or anatomist could not have done the work so well as they are not constantly operating, while a butcher is almost daily cutting up carcasses.

Again, the cause of death could not be determined, and the only description on the record for what had happened was that the unknown victim was “found dead.”This incident became known as the first victim of Thames torso murders.

 

But these incidents were only the beginning of what was waiting for the city.Since that period London had seen a rapid development in its course.

By the late Victorian era in 1888, London was dubbed to be the largest capital in the world.It was the centre of the ever-increasing British empire. Queen Victoria had been on the throne for well over 50 years and the public face of Britain reflected Victoria’s lifestyle which was proud, dignified and above all, proper. It was the centre of empire, culture,finance, communication and transportation, with a new emerging mass media called the new journalism.

 

While the city grew in size and wealth, it also grew in population, and so millions lived in poverty.Right on its doorstep in the East End lay the district of Whitechapel. It was a crime-ridden sordid quarter, where more than 78,000 residents lived in abject poverty. It was an area of doss houses, sweatshops, abattoirs, overcrowded slums, pubs, a few shops and warehouses, leavened with a row or two of respectably kept cottages.

Whitechapel housed London’s worst slums and the poverty of its inhabitants was appalling. In fact, malnutrition and disease was so widespread that its inhabitants had about a 50 percent chance of living past the age of five years old.

 

 

 

The West End of London , however, was undergoing massive renovation and prosperity, opening up to new concert halls, music halls, restaurants and hotels. As the city expanded , cheap housing was being demolished to make way for warehouses and business offices, which forced more people into smaller areas.

 

Overcrowding and a shortage of housing created the abyss of Whitechapel. For most of the population in the East End,they lived and died in the same neighbourhood in which they were born.People there did not have any hopes of a better future.

 

The East End consisted of a maze of entries, alleyways and courtyards which were all lit by single gas lamps, giving out light to about 6 feet in length that at times were so thick, that you would have to struggle to even see your own hand in front of your face. The whole neighbourhood was filled with dirt and debris.Sanitation was practically non-existent and people would throw their raw sewage into the street, making the stench of the whole district unbearable.

 

 

 

 

Although some areas of Whitechapel during this time were relatively crime-free and had law-abiding citizens, there’s no denying that its overcrowded slums were some of the worst places in the city. Around 15,000 of Whitechapel’s residents were homeless and unemployed, and the little money they had often went to drowning their sorrows in the area’s countless different pubs.

Not just limited to poverty and crime rates, Whitechapel was so overcrowded in its poorer areas,that up to two or three entire families would often be crammed into one small room just because they couldn’t afford to pay rent anywhere else.

 

Whitechapel was considered to be the most notorious criminal rookery in London. The area was described as "perhaps the foulest and most dangerous street in the whole metropolis".Robbery,violence,prostitution and alcohol addiction was a common thing .The district was characterised by extreme poverty, sub-standard housing, poor sanitation, homelessness, drunkenness and endemic prostitution.

 

Whitechapel became known as an immigrant district mostly due to the large influx of Jewish, Irish and Russian immigrants and refugees. The potato famine which started in 1845 had seen a large influx of Irish immigrants in the mid 1800′s along with the Jewish population who arrived in thousands whilst fleeing persecution in Russia, Germany and Poland.By 1888 the Jewish Population of Whitechapel had grown to between 45,000 and 50,00. At first these Jewish immigrants had settled into the streets to the south of Spitalfields.

But by 1888 they had begun expanding into other parts of the East End. Charles Booth states:-

 

 

There were mainly three categories of people that were living in Whitechapel.The poor which included the Builders, labourers, shopkeepers, dock workers & tailors.The very poor which included the Women & children who usually worked as seamstresses, weavers or clothes washers.The Homeless ,they were people living in a permanent state of deprivation.

The only thing that they all had in common was the struggle for survival.Every day was a struggle for rights and survival in Whitechapel.There was a large scarcity for available resources such as education,health and housing.

 

For people like the poor and destitute, common lodging houses offered a bed for the night.By law every one of these common lodging houses had to be licensed and was subjected to strict police supervision.Most of the lodging houses were owned by middle-class entrepreneurs and investors, the majority of whom lived well outside the area and entrusted the day to day running of the businesses to "wardens" or "keepers." Many of these had criminal backgrounds and operated on the periphery of the law. They would turn a blind eye, probably in return for a share of the proceeds, to illegal activity and blatantly flouted the regulation stating that men and women, unless married, must be kept separate.

Each one had to display a placard in a prominent position stating the number of beds for which it was licensed, a number that was calculated on the basis of a minimum allowance of space per person.

Bed linen had to be changed weekly, and the windows had to be thrown open daily at 10am to ensure that the rooms were well ventilated.Men's and women's dormitories were meant to be separate, and rooms for married couples were meant to be separated.

Here you would be cramped up into a small dormitory with up to 80 others and for 4 pence you could get a bed which was practically a coffin lying on the ground.For 2 pence you could lean against a rope, which was tied from one end of the wall to the other. Every night 8,500 men, women and children would seek shelter within these walls.These lodging houses never had a sense of cleanliness.Most people would wear the same clothes everyday. They were always dirty and filled with rats.The walls had holes in them,and there were times people reportedly used them as secret compartments to hide their smaller ,yet valuable items.As rainy seasons approached,the ceiling leaked and they would gather around their pots to hold the water for future use.These common lodging houses often called doss houses lay just off the main roads of commercial street such as Thrawl Street, Flower and Dean and Dorset Street a street that had such a bad reputation that let alone commoners even the police wouldn’t go down unless they were in teams of four.These lodging houses were run by greedy landlords that had one motto: 'No pay no stay.' No money meant the night in doorways, lavatories or huddled up in the church park.

An account of one man as he said,
"We males still had our jobs mostly at dockyards offloading ships or as market porters. For women, work was really outnumbered and even if they did find any work.The were paid very little,and to be able to survive in that was just impossible, so out of sheer desperation many turned to the oldest profession in the world, prostitution. The women, commonly referred to as ‘fallen ones’, owned only what they wore and carried in their pockets - their deeds would pay for their bed for the night. This was their only means of income and survival. With the little money they earned, most would seek comfort in alcohol as their only way of escaping from their harsh reality. However, a lack of contraception meant that unorthodox abortions were performed in dirty facilities, including the back streets. This, of course, fed into the cycle of disease and many women would die of infection from these ill-performed surgeries, or from ingesting chemicals or poison."

 

According to one account, the women of the East End at the time were so destitute that they would sell themselves for as little as three pence, or a stale loaf of bread. According to the census record published in October 1888, the Metropolitan police estimated there were just over 1,200 prostitutes working the streets in Whitechapel alone. This was almost certainly an underestimate, for the actual number of women who were working as a prostitute.Over drinking and riots with the gangs ,that operated in the area resulted,in the dreadful look into these women.Most would look like they were in their 40s despite not being over the age of 20.There was no policy or jobs for them.Although it appears they were rather forced to it,It's certain that,they could have a better future,if only they tried a bit harder.

 

No one really cared about these fallen ones ,whenever a prostitute was attacked or murdered, it was rarely reported in the press or discussed in the other areas in London, which led to countless of these women being subjected to physical attacks often by their customers or landlady.

 

However there was one guy who tried to make some difference.His name was Frederick Charrington.He was the son and heir of a partner in one of London's largest breweries, the Charrington Brewery.

Throughout the winter of 1887 up until the year 1888 Frederick Charrington,spearheaded a determined campaign to rid the East End of vice.One day while he was walking down the streets of Whitechapel he saw a poorly dressed woman with her children begging her husband to come out of the pub and give her money for some food.So that her hungry kids could eat something.The furious husband came out and knocked her into the gutter. Charrington went to help and was also knocked to the ground. Looking up, he saw his name on the sign above the pub.

“When I saw that sign,” he later wrote, “I was stricken just as surely as Paul on the Damascus Road. Here was the source of my family wealth, and it was producing untold human misery before my own eyes. Then and there I pledged to God that not another penny of that money should come to me.”

Charrington left his family business and devoted his life to help the poor.He wanted to develop the lifestyle of the people living in the East End,but to no surprise it also had some rather disappointing results.

He opened The Great Assembly Hall in Mile End, a huge undertaking, which could accommodate some five thousand East Enders and which was crammed to the rafters on Sundays, when the local poor and destitute would arrive to enjoy tea and sustenance, prior to attending the evening service.

He abhorred the number of brothels in the area and used the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, under the terms of which a citizen could report any house suspected of operating as a brothel to the police in return for a reward to launch his own private crusade to close them down.

Armed with a large black book to note down suspect houses, Charrington cut a swathe through the East End flesh trade that saw brothel after brothel closed down. Indeed, according to his biographer, Guy Thorne, he succeeded in closing down around 200 East End brothels.However even though his bold move was to save the East End.It was a very likely reason for these fallen women in particular ,who now were an easy target for the notorious gangs.

The poor economic conditions of Whitechapel paved its way into the headlines.But what truly made it a legendary location was not it's poor and filthy condition nor the Thames River murders but the infamous Jack the ripper.It is generally believed,that Jack the Ripper had only five victims also known as Canonical five, his so called reign of terror lasted a mere twelve or so weeks means that he wasn't at large for a particularly long period of time.

 

 

Domestic violence was commonplace as were attacks on people in the streets.
Much of this was a direct result of the drunkenness that was endemic in certain sections of East End Society. Other attacks were carried about by the sizable population of lunatics and other fringe characters to whom the streets of Whitechapel and Spitalfields were the place of last resort.

Then of course there was robbery and assault related violence as the district's sizable criminal population went about their nefarious business, stealing from those who were less able to defend themselves.

So, violence wasn't uncommon in the area. Indeed such were the number of attacks that caused victims to cry "Murder!" that such cries were heard many times in a night and the populace at large had long grown used to ignoring such cries, believing them to be either the result of drunken brawls or domestic violence.

So, attempting to isolate particular cases of violence in an area that was rife with such cases is a little like trying to locate a needle in a haystack.

 

 

After some time of cool and pleasant time in the city,the storm struck again. It all begun on one Saturday.It was February 25th and the year was 1888.I along with some of my fellow men ,were smoking,outside our office near the alley connecting Spitalfields,when we heard the news of a 38 year old widow named Annie Millwood,widow of a soldier named Richard Millwood being brutally stabbed.She lived in White’s Row, Spitalfields.She was allegedly a prostitute and was often seen with strangers at lonely places.It wasn't really a surprise,that perhaps one of her clients might have stabbed her.The news came ,that she was admitted to the Whitechapel Workhouse Infirmary.She was suffering from stab wounds to her legs and the lower part of her abdomen.It simply wasn't new to us.There were multiple gangs who operated in here and we were forced to give them protection money.They would terrorise the people living in here and whoever failed to give them money was beaten and often injured with knives.But her story was different.In her testimony,she said,that she had been attacked by a single man whom she did not know, and who stabbed her with a clasp knife which he took from his pocket.

Initially it was thought to be the work of a gang member,if not the gang themselves.But due to the lack of eye witnesses ,the investigation could not move any further.

The incident gradually seemed to sink down just like thousands of such stories in the neighbourhood.One month passed away after that little disturbing incident on the late February when on March 28th 1888, just a little over midnight ,A woman called Ada Wilson,a dress maker, heard a knock at the door,so she went to check,who it was.

When she opened the door, she saw a man standing outside.The man demanded money from her and threatened to kill her if she didn’t give him money.When Ada refused, he took out a clasp-knife and stabbed her twice in the throat.Her screams disturbed her upstairs neighbour,Rose Bierman, who came down to investigate the scream,and found Ada Wilson in a state of near collapse in the hallway.Seeing her shout the young man disappeared into the street.I happened to cross that road minutes after the incident.When I crossed the road,two officers held me in and asked me if I saw something or not.According to eyewitnesses and the victim,Ada wilson reported that the man in his early 30s,who was around five foot six in height, and had a fair moustache and a sunburnt face standing outside.His wore a dark coat, light trousers and a wide-awake hat.When the man saw,her scream he fled into the darkness of the alleyway.

It was obvious it was done by a rookie or someone from the gangs trying to get something off.People of the east end would often involve themselves in such petty crimes.Or perhaps someone she owed money.It was a dead end as she couldn't clearly state of her assailant and the case was eventually brought to a closure.

However the assailant striked again.But this time in a group. On a Tuesday on 3rd April 1888, following the Easter Monday bank holiday, 45-year-old Emma Elizabeth Smith was going home when she was assaulted and robbed at the junction of Osborn Street and Brick Lane, Whitechapel.In the early hours of that morning. Although injured, she survived the attack and managed to walk back to her lodging house at 18 George Street, Spitalfields. She told the deputy keeper of the lodging house, Mary Russell, that she had been attacked by two or three men at the most, one of them was a teenager. Russell took Smith to the London Hospital, where a medical examination revealed that a blunt object had been inserted into her vagina, rupturing her peritoneum. She developed peritonitis and died at 9 am the following day.

 

Smith's life prior to her murder in 1888 remains mysterious and uncertain. According to reports and Police files that were gathered during the investigation, most of the information were missing,or apparently been taken away, mislaid or discarded from the Metropolitan Police archive before the transfer of papers to the Public Record Office.In one of the surviving records, Inspector Edmund Reid ,who was the chief CID inspector of the Metropolitan police department notes a "son and daughter living in Finsbury Park area".Walter Dew, a detective constable stationed with H Division, later wrote:

Her past was a closed book even to her intimate friends. All she had ever told anyone about herself was that she was a widow who more than ten years before had left her husband and broken away from all her early associations.

There was something about Emma Smith which suggested that there had been a time when the comforts of life had not been denied her. There was a touch of culture in her speech, unusual in her class.

Once when Emma was asked why she had broken away so completely from her old life she replied, a little wistfully: "They would not understand now any more than they understood then. I must live somehow."

The inquest was conducted on 7th April by the coroner for East Middlesex, Wynne Edwin Baxter and Edmund Reid of H Division Whitechapel, who investigated the attack.

But since Smith had not provided descriptions of the men who had attacked her and no witnesses ever came forward or were found. The investigation proved fruitless and the murderer or murderers were never caught. Walter Dew later described the investigation:

As in every case of murder in this country, however poor and friendless the victims might be, the police made every effort to track down Emma Smith's assailant. Unlikely as well as likely places were searched for clues. Hundreds of people were interrogated. Scores of statements were taken. Soldiers from the Tower of London were questioned as to their movements. Ships in docks were searched and sailors questioned.He did believed Smith to be the first victim of Jack the Ripper, but his colleagues suspected her murder was the work of a criminal gang. Smith claimed that she was attacked by two or three men, but either refused to or could not describe them beyond stating one was a teenager. East End prostitutes were often managed by gangs, and Smith could have been attacked by her pimps as a punishment for disobeying them, or as an act of intimidation. She may not have identified her attackers because she feared reprisal.

 

Less than three months

Impressum

Verlag: BookRix GmbH & Co. KG

Tag der Veröffentlichung: 22.12.2022
ISBN: 978-3-7554-2823-7

Alle Rechte vorbehalten

Widmung:
This book is dedicated to all the unfortunate victims of Jack the Ripper.May their soul rest in peace. And a heartfelt gratitude to Inspector Amberline and all the people who gave their service for the cause.