In fact, several chief suspects in the murders were Jewish. One, a Polish Jew named John Pizer, was known to be a small-time blackmailer and abuser of prostitutes. He was a boot finisher by trade, and when the police came to question him they found several sharp knives and a leather apron on the premises. Since a leather apron had been found not far from the body of Annie Chapman, he was taken to the police station and jailed on suspicion of her murder. However, the apron turned out to belong to a neighbor on Hanbury Street. Pizer’s alibi held up, and the police were forced to release him.
The Jews were particularly unpopular in Whitechapel, where they formed a considerable proportion of the population, and the situation had not been helped by a notorious murder case, some four years earlier, when a Jew named Lipski had been hanged for the murder of his Jewish girlfriend.
Sir Charles Warren considered social liberation in England a critical issue. The Britain of this era was great indeed, rich and authoritative, proud possessor of an Empire on which the sun never set, in which members of a burgeoning middle class could hope to reap rewards, too—although the mansions and great estates were still the privilege of the selected and wealthy few. The British fleet ruled the oceans.
The extravagant lifestyle of the rich was in stark contrast to that of the many slum dwellers who struggled in the wilderness of poverty, alcohol, and illness. In general, members of the aristocratic class lived in an atmosphere of luxury and festivity and appeared to pass their days entirely in entertaining themselves. Very few participated in helping the more unfortunate or were prepared to take on genuine responsibilities. The royal family, in particular, was criticized. Queen Victoria lived almost entirely in retirement at Windsor, in the Highlands, or on the Isle of Wight, while the Prince of Wales, denied by his mother any opportunity to participate in the business of ruling, spent most of his time hunting, going to parties, traveling around Europe, or making triumphal trips through India. People observed, also, that though the Prince had married the beautiful and popular Alexandra, he regularly left her at home while he continued his peripatetic existence, constantly meeting with other attractive women. Such behavior earned him positive dislike in many quarters. His elder son Prince Albert Victor, known as Eddy, was a very unprepossessing heir to the throne and, as we shall hear later, involved in scandals. Even the Princess of Wales’s personal popularity could not bring people to think well of her neglectful husband or look forward to Prince Eddy’s ascent to the throne.
There were those who agreed with Warren on the social and class inequities. Nevertheless, the General began to feel outcast and isolated. Six months earlier, in March 1888, he had informed the Home Secretary of his intention to resign. The idea of a conspiracy directed by the Freemasons seems extremely questionable; more likely, there may have been some interference by various officials in the murder investigations, including cover-ups and glossing over of possible suspects. It was probably the personality more than the practices of Sir Charles Warren that created controversy and condemnation.
Earlier, Warren appointed as his assistant commissioner a man named Robert Anderson. There were several curious features about Anderson’s involvement in the case. The new assistant had arranged to take a vacation in Switzerland and was to begin his duties on his return. The murder of Mary Anne Nichols in Buck’s Row took place on August 31, eight days before Anderson was due to leave, and Annie Chapman was murdered on Hanbury Street on September 8, the morning of that eighth day. Despite these dual emergencies, however, Anderson refused to postpone his vacation and departed as planned. Barely a month later, Anderson seemed to be taking credit for the operation by submitting an updated report of the murder investigations to the Home Secretary’s Office, though he had had very little to do with its preparation.
As if adding insult to injury, the Home Secretary’s Office kept issuing orders directly to Anderson and Warren’s other subordinates, rather than routing them through the General himself. This deliberate bypassing of the regular channels caused confusion and resentment throughout the police division and certainly slowed the investigation of the Whitechapel murders. A catch-22 situation evolved in which Warren was severely hampered in his efforts to capture Jack the Ripper while being criticized for not devoting his efforts to the capture of Jack the Ripper.
In the House of Commons on November 12, 1888, Mr. Conybeare rose to question the Home Secretary.
RESIGNATION OF SIR C. WARREN.
Mr. CONYBEARE asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he could state the exact reason why the late head of the Detective Department in the Metropolitan Police resigned his position; whether it was the fact that Sir C. Warren had now practically the direct control of the Detective Department; and whether, in view of the constant recurrence of atrocious murders, and the failure of the new organisation and methods to detect the murderer, he would consider the propriety of making some change in the arrangements of Scotland-yard. The hon. member also wished to know whether it was true, as reported in the newspapers that afternoon, that Sir C. Warren had tendered his resignation, and that it had been accepted.
The HOME SECRETARY.—I have already more than once stated the reason why Mr. Monro resigned. With regard to the remainder of the question, Mr. Anderson is now in direct control of the Criminal Investigation Department, under the superintendence and control, as provided by statute, of the Chief Commissioner. The failure of the police, so far, to detect the person guilty of the Whitechapel murders is due, not to any new reorganisation in the department, but to the extraordinary cunning and secrecy which characterise the commission of the crimes. I have for some time had the question of the whole system of the Criminal Investigation Department under my consideration, with a view to introducing any improvement that may be required. With regard to the last question, I have to inform the hon. member that the Chief Commissioner of Police did on the 8th inst. tender his resignation to her Majesty’s Government, and that his resignation has been accepted (loud Opposition cheers).*29
Finding the continual erosion of his status intolerable, Warren had in fact tendered his resignation on November 8, and the Home Secretary now confirmed to Mr. Conybeare that it had been accepted, amid loud cheering from the political opposition.
Despite the bifurcated police operations, the CID (now being run by Anderson) fervently pursued all potential clues that might lead them to the murderer. They increased the number of policemen on the case and interrogated an ever-growing number of suspects.
Among those suspected were the seamen whose ships came to London, unloaded their cargo, then left and returned again on a fairly regular basis at the end of each week. The list of crew and cattlemen issued by the Statistical Department of the London Custom House on November 15, 1888, shows that every one of those examined at great length by the police proved to have a watertight alibi.
During their investigations, the department also discussed the idea of offering rewards to those who could help them in their inquiries, but in line with British morality, rewards were felt to be unnecessary, and Mr. Montagu’s offer of five hundred pounds was never taken up.
Almost unanimously, the newspapers expressed the outrage of a British public held hostage by fear and panic. The only way of easing the tension was to find the murderer and bring him to justice.
* * *
*1 The Times (London), circa 1850s.
*2 Charles Dickens, Bleak House, Bradbury and Evan, London, 1853, p. 1.
*3 William Acton, Prostitution, Considered in its Moral, Social, and Sanitary Aspects, in London and other large cities and Garrison Towns, with Proposals for the Control and Prevention of its Attendant Evils, John Churchill, London 1862, as quoted in Steven Marcus, The Other Victorians; A Study of Sexuality and Pornography in Mid-Nineteenth-Century England. Basic Books, New York [1966], p. 7.
*4 Jack London, The People of the Abyss, Macmillan & Co., New York, 1903, p. 152.
*5 The Times (London), September 1, 1888.
*6 Ibid.
*7 Report by Henry Llewellyn, Metropolitan Police, London, August 31, 1888.
*8 Report by Chief Inspector Swanson, Metropolitan Police, London, September 2, 1888.
*9 The Lancet, September 29, 1888, p. 637.
*10 The Times (London), September 14, 1888.
*11 Ibid., September 27, 1888.
*12 The Lancet, September 15, 1888, pp. 533–534.
*13 Report by Professor Francis E. Camps, London Hospital Gazette, Vol. LXIX, No. 1, April, 1966.
*14 Coroner’s Inquest: Catherine Eddowes, No. 135, 1888.
*15 Letter by Mr. Blair to Home Secretary, November 11, 1888.
*16 Ibid.
*17 Letter to Scotland Yard, October, 1888.
*18 Ibid.
*19 Memo to Mr. Lusk, Public Record Office, Scotland Yard, October 7, 1888.
*20 Daily Chronicle, July 19, 1889.
*21 London Police Report to Home Secretary, October 25, 1888.
*22 Files of Whitechapel Murders, Public Record Office, Scotland Yard, July, 1892.
*23 The Lancet, September 8, 1888.
*24 Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, Transactions, Lodge No. 2076, Vol. 99, September 1987, Adlaird & Son, The Garden City Press.
*25 Geoffrey Trease, London: A Concise History, New York, 1975, p. 138.
*26 Martin Howells & Keith Skinner, The Ripper Legacy: The Life and Death of Jack the Ripper, Sidgwick & Jackson, London, 1987, pp. 16–17.
*27 Report by Charles Warren to Home Secretary, London, November 6, 1888.
*28 Ibid.
*29 The Standard, November 13, 1888.
The Jack the Ripper Murders
ANONYMOUS
The atrocities collectively known as the Jack the Ripper murders did wonders for the newspapers of London, which sold frequent updates to an ever-eager public, issuing new editions at the slightest hint of any scant scrap of new evidence, or (more likely) speculation, gossip, and outright creative fantasy.
Fifty daily newspapers in that overcrowded city vied for the attention of readers, sending out newsboys in droves, screaming out the latest headlines. Each murder was a boon to Fleet Street, and none capitalized on it more than the relatively staid Times. Even at the height of the frenzy for greater and greater titillation as reporters struggled to outdo each other with more and more lurid descriptions of the grisly slaughters, The Times continued its reportage with adherence to rudimentary journalistic practices of accuracy and as much completeness as possible under the circumstances.
The following narrative provides much of the basic information as it came to light in contemporary accounts published in The Times. They were collected and reprinted as a single chapter (one of twenty-eight) in a book edited by Richard Barker (1902–1968) more than a half century later, reflecting the reading public’s never-ending interest in Red Jack.
“The Jack the Ripper Murders” accounts were first published in The Times (London, August 10–November 22, 1888); they were first collected in The Fatal Caress, edited by Richard Barker (New York, Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1947).
THE JACK THE RIPPER MURDERS
Anonymous
THE FIRST MURDER, APRIL 3
Victim: Emma Elizabeth Smith
[Not reported in The Times.]
THE SECOND MURDER, AUGUST 7
Victim: Martha Tabram
Place: Grove-Yard Buildings
August 10. Yesterday afternoon Mr. G. Collier, Deputy Coroner for the South-Eastern Division of Middlesex, opened an inquiry respecting the death of the woman who was found on Tuesday last with thirty-nine stabs on her body at Grove-Yard Buildings, Whitechapel.
Dr. T. R. Killeen said that he was called to the deceased and found her dead. She had thirty-nine stabs on the body. She had been dead some three hours. The left lung was penetrated in five places, and the right lung was penetrated in two places. The heart, which was rather fatty, was penetrated in one place. The liver was healthy but was penetrated in five places, the spleen was penetrated in two places, and the stomach—which was perfectly healthy—was penetrated in six places. The witness did not think all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument.
It was one of the most dreadful murders anyone could imagine. The man must have been a perfect savage to inflict such a number of wounds on a defenceless woman in such a way.
THE THIRD MURDER, AUGUST 31
Victim: Mary Ann Nichols
Place: Bucks Row
September 1. Another murder of the foulest kind was committed in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel in the early hours of yesterday morning, but by whom and with what motive is at present a complete mystery. At a quarter to four o’clock Police Constable Neill when in Bucks Row, Whitechapel, came upon the body of a woman lying on a part of the footway, and on stooping to raise her up in the belief that she was drunk, he discovered that her throat was cut almost from ear to ear. She was dead but still warm. He procured assistance and at once sent to the station and for a doctor. Dr. Llewellyn, whose surgery is not above a hundred yards from the spot, was aroused and at a solicitation from a constable, dressed and went at once to the scene. He made a hasty examination and then discovered that besides the gash across the throat the woman had terrible wounds in the abdomen.
The police have no theory with respect to the matter except that a gang of ruffians exists in the neighbourhood which, blackmailing women of the “unfortunate” class, takes vengeance on those who do not find money for them. They base that surmise on the fact that within twelve months two other women have been murdered in the district by almost similar means—one as recently as the 6th of August last—and left in the gutter of the street in the early hours of the morning.
THE FOURTH MURDER, SEPTEMBER 8
Victim: Annie Chapman
Place: Hanbury Street
September 10. Whitechapel and the whole of the East of London have again been thrown into a state of intense excitement by the discovery early on Saturday morning of the body of a woman who had been murdered in a similar way to Mary Ann Nichols at Bucks Row on Friday week. In fact the similarity in the two cases is startling, as the victim of the outrage had her head almost severed from her body and was completely disembowelled. This latest crime, however, even surpasses the others in ferocity.
The scene of the murder, which makes the fourth in the same neighbourhood within the past few weeks, is at the back of the house 29 Hanbury Street, Spitalfields. This street runs from Commercial Street to Bakers Row, the end of which is close to Bucks Row. The house, which is rented by a Mrs. Emilia Richardson, is let out to various lodgers, all of the poorer class. In consequence, the front door is open both day and night, so that no difficulty would be experienced by anyone in gaining admission to the back portion of the premises.
Shortly before six o’clock on Saturday morning John Davis, who lives with his wife at the top portion of No. 29, went down into the backyard, where a horrible sight presented itself to him. Lying close up against the wall, with her head touching the other side of the wall, was the body of a woman. Davis could see that her throat was severed in a terrible manner and that she had other wounds of a nature too shocking to be described. The deceased was lying on her back with her clothes disarranged.
Without nearer approaching the body but telling his wife what he had seen, Davis ran to the Commercial Street Police Station and gave information to Inspector Chandler, who was in charge of the station at the time. That officer, having dispatched a constable for Dr. Phillips, repaired to the house accompanied by several other policemen. The body was still in the same position and there were large clots of blood all round it. It is evident that the murderer thought he had completely cut the head off, as a handkerchief was found wrapped round the neck as though to hold it together. There were spots and stains of blood on the wall. One or more rings seem to have been torn from the middle finger of the left hand. A minute search being made of the yard, a portion of an envelope stained with blood was found. It had the crest of the Sussex Regiment on it and
the date “London, August 20,” but the address portion—with the exception of the one letter “M”—was torn off. In addition, two pills were also picked up.
The police believe that the murder has been committed by the same person who perpetrated the three previous ones in the district and that only one person is concerned in it. This person might be, is doubtless labouring under some terrible form of insanity, as each of the crimes has been of a most fiendish character, and it is feared that unless he can speedily be captured more outrages of a similar class will be committed.
Inquest on Mary Ann Nichols, September 4–24
Testimony of William Nichols. Nichols, a machinist, stated that the deceased woman was his wife. He had been separated from her for upwards of eight years. The last time he saw her was over three years ago, and he had no idea what she had been doing since that time nor with whom she lived. Deceased was much given to drink. They separated several times, and each time he took her back she got drunk and that was why he had to leave her altogether.
Statement of the Coroner. Referring to the facts in the case before him, the Coroner said the deceased had been identified by her father and her husband to have been Mary Ann Nichols, a married woman with five children and about forty-two years of age. It was pretty clear that she had been living an intemperate, irregular, and vicious life, mostly in the common lodging-houses in that neighbourhood.
On Friday evening, the 31st of August, she was seen by Mrs. Holland—who knew her well—at the corner of Osborn Street and Whitechapel Road, nearly opposite the church. The deceased woman was then much the worse for drink and was staggering against the wall. Her friend endeavoured to persuade her to come home with her, but she declined and was last seen endeavouring to walk eastward down Whitechapel. She said she had had her lodging money three times that day but that she had spent it, that she was going about to get some money to pay her lodgings, and she would soon be back. In less than an hour and a quarter after this she was found dead at a spot rather under three-quarters of a mile distant.
The Big Book of Jack the Ripper Page 4