by Ivor Edwards
London became the largest city in Europe by the end of the 17th century and contained a tenth of England’s population. Its growth reflected the emergence of England as a major trading nation. The government did what it could to make matters worse for the working classes. The Enclosure Act, which recurred in 1750-1870, was another blow to the poor. Common land was taken over by local landowners, and the loss of rights to common land caused severe hardship to the peasantry. The wealthy grew richer while the poor lost what little they had.
They hang the fellow that steals the goose
From off the common.
But let the larger villain loose who steals
The common from the goose.
The land-owning classes were producing more corn than the people could eat (and people were still starving), but they came up with a solution to the problem by turning the surplus into gin.
By the early 18th century, gin had become the everyday drink of the working classes. The death rate became twice the birth rate by 1720, and the average lifespan of a male was 29. By 1742, there was one gin shop for every 70 inhabitants and over a quarter of the houses in many parts of London were gin shops. Between 7 and 8 million gallons of gin were consumed by the population. It was reported that one in eight Londoners died due to excessive drinking.
For many of London’s poor, life became a short and squalid journey through alcoholism to destitution and a pauper’s grave. The docks bred a lot of the crime and when the docks were closed in the 1960s the crime that was associated with them died out. The infamous Ratcliffe Highway ran east from the Tower, parallel to the docks. It was considered to be one of the worst roads in London in the 18th and 19th centuries. The Highway was notorious for crime and was a very dangerous area in which to live. It was lined with dope dens and shops which bought and sold many exotic items brought ashore by sailors and travellers.
Brothels, pubs, ratting dens and cock-fighting dens were only a sample of the entertainment available. Crime-fighting in the capital was totally corrupt. It provoked and encouraged crime. Charles Hitchin, the Under City Marshal, worked hand in glove with the notorious master criminal Jonathan Wild. When the Marshal was later imprisoned, Wild took over the business of crime-fighting, naming himself ‘Thief-taker General of Great Britain and Ireland’.
He organised gangs in areas to steal goods, which would be returned to the owners for a fee. Goods not collected would be sold on. Wild sent an estimated 67 criminals to the gallows because they either failed to share their loot with him or tried to cheat him. He received 40 pounds for every criminal convicted.
Wild made 2,680 pounds from those 67 lives. This was only one of the many scams he perpetrated. He became the most detested man in London. Wild was eventually hanged on 25 May 1725, for receiving stolen property.
Mr Egan and Mr Salmon were thief-takers who prompted young men to commit crime, only to give false evidence against them. The purpose of this was to gain the reward when the victims were hanged. When their crimes were exposed they could only face imprisonment or the pillory. They were placed in Smithfield pillory where an enraged mob stoned Egan to death, maiming Salmon.
We have all heard of the Bow Street Runners, forerunners to the modern day police force. Thomas De Veil became a Middlesex magistrate who openly admitted that he only accepted the job because he knew that magistrates could line their own pockets and extort sexual favours from prostitutes. De Veil learned a considerable amount from the illegal activities of Jonathan Wild.
He took a house in Bow Street in 1740 that became his office and the court. He carried out most of his business from a dubious pub in Bow Street called the Brown Bear. He was well known as one who prompted crime which could then be solved, in order to receive reward money. It was De Veil and his successor, Henry Fielding, who made Bow Street the centre of London crime-fighting. Many of their methods were illegal, regardless of accounts to the contrary.
The Bow Street Runners used the tactics of the old thief-takers to obtain their results. Their legacy lives on. In the 1960s I personally knew police officers who encouraged crime – burglary in particular. One such individual was promoted over the years and was placed in charge of the CID department in a large provincial town near London. Some police officers today still refer to catching criminals as thief-taking. Thief-taking was thief-making.
A typical street scene showing how the Crown and government cared for its young subjects
During the 19th century the population in London rose to over 2 million, and the crime rate soared. Pimps, pirates, murderers, whores, muggers and thieves all worked the area. In and around Ratcliffe Highway, warehouses were filled to the brim with every item needed to run the base of the British Empire. Booty and trade goods from every country in the Empire found its way to the docks.
Near to the river and the docks stood the houses of the dockworkers, doss houses, poor houses, pubs, churches, slaughterhouses and stores. Suffice to say that the locals had a very hard time of it. Many children were dressed in rags and wore no footwear. This, then, was how the British Crown and government looked after the welfare of its population. A minority of leeches motivated by power and greed grew rich on the pain, suffering and misery which they inflicted on the many they exploited.
Throughout London’s history, executions were considered by the masses to be mere entertainment. A mentality prevailed which was no different from that of the Romans at the Coliseum in Rome. Scenes of sheer brutality and barbarity occurred in the name of justice, in which the hapless victims were hanged, drawn and quartered. The intestines would be ripped from the victim and burned on a brazier. People were boiled and burned alive at Smithfield. The methods of torture utilised were endless. At the end of the day what was left of the victims would be placed on public display as a warning to others.
The appliance of terror was used to manipulate and control the masses. In the 700-year history of one execution site at Tyburn tree (now Marble Arch) over 50,000 men, women and children were publicly hanged. A girl of 14 was hanged in 1782 for keeping company with gypsies. In 1833, a nine-year-old boy was publicly hanged for stealing printer’s ink valued at a penny. That was one of the more serious cases. Public executions were not abolished in Britain until 1868.
Conditions in the East End were comparable to those in the Warsaw Ghetto. Baby farming was practised throughout London; it was not illegal. Many children not yet in their teens were involved in prostitution. Children were also expected to work to survive. Many of these children were homeless and went on the streets. They had to join up with others to survive, hence the birth of many street gangs. Children had no choice in the matter. Such poor, grief-stricken areas could be found the length and breadth of the country.
One of the greatest pieces of hypocrisy ever to be placed on a public building was written over the entrance to the Central Criminal Court (known as the Old Bailey). It read: Defend the children of the poor and punish the wrongdoer. The East End was only one such area in existence in Britain. One could not be any poorer than these people. It was from such a context that Jack the Ripper was to take five individuals and rob them of the only things they possessed of any value, their lives.
Contemporary police records indicate that about 1,200 prostitutes worked the Whitechapel district in 1888. The five victims of Jack the Ripper resided in the district of Spitalfields and two were murdered there. Two were murdered in Whitechapel and one in Aldgate in the City. The area of Spitalfields, in the East End of Jack’s London in 1888, was filled with many Jewish and Irish immigrants with a smattering of other nationalities. It was considered to be one of the worst areas in London for poverty.
Crime was rife, with many gangs in competition. Murder, mugging, rape, child abuse, skinning (stripping children of their clothes which were then sold) and robbery were just a few of the most frequent of crimes. The cry of ‘Murder’ was so commonplace it was simply ignored. This, then, was Spitalfields; the neighbourhood the five victims of the killer known as Jack th
e Ripper inhabited.
Enter Jack the Ripper
In the annals of murder, one name reigns supreme, towering above all others. We are all familiar with the unknown killer dubbed Jack the Ripper who murdered five prostitutes in the East End of London in 1888. However, Jack’s reputation and legacy have been blown out of proportion by irresponsible and unscrupulous journalists working for a media lacking in integrity and motivated by greed, power and sensationalism. Jack the Ripper, considered by some as the forerunner to the modern serial killer, has become the victim of overkill.
This young girl (photograph taken in 1896) could quite easily be mistaken for a concentration camp victim
Mention the name Jack the Ripper to most people and their romantic imagination will conjure a cloaked figure, presumed to be a surgeon, with top hat and Gladstone bag gliding down fog-enshrouded alleyways. His victims are pictured as young, buxom, beauties decked out in fine Victorian satin dresses with undergarments of lace and silk.
There was nothing romantic about Jack the Ripper’s East End. It was cold and wet when three of the five murders were committed. The main roads were utilised by the killer and not the labyrinth of alleyways in the area. The killer did not wear a top hat or carry a Gladstone bag. Four out of five victims were anything but young and buxom, and the attire of this class of prostitute usually consisted of dirty dresses. Many prostitutes wore men’s boots, which were laced up the front. Underwear was not worn, for quick sex was the order of the day.
The only correct general suppositions ever made about the killer are that he was middle class and a surgeon. So much rubbish has been accumulated over the years and so many untruths have been written that the true situation has been grossly misinterpreted. This state of affairs will be dealt with later. Also, many works on the subject have been undertaken by those with little or no experience in criminology.
CHAPTER THREE
THE FIRST VICTIM
FRIDAY, 31 AUGUST 1888, WHITECHAPEL
Age: 45
Profession or calling: Prostitute
Hair: Dark (turning grey)
Eyes: Brown
Face: Discoloration of face
Complexion: Dark
Marks or peculiarities: On person a piece of looking glass, a comb and handkerchief
Dress: Brown ulster, seven large buttons, horse and man standing by side thereon, linsey frock, brown stays, blue ribbed woollen stockings, straw bonnet
MARY ANN NICHOLS, also known as Polly, worked in the Whitechapel Road, plying her trade as a prostitute during the dark hours. She was the wife of William Nichols, a printer’s machinist of 37, Coburg Road, Old Kent Road, London. The above description was sent with a summary report, dated 19 October 1888, written by Chief Inspector DS Swanson, CID, Scotland Yard.
Her marriage had failed in 1880 and, due to her habits, she lost custody of her two children. She spent most of the time in the Lambeth area until 1888. She absconded from her employers, Mr and Mrs Cowdry, in Wandsworth in July 1888 after stealing clothes.
From 2 to 24 August, she shared a bed with Ellen Holland at 18, Thrawl Street. From 24 to 30 August, she resided in Flower and Dean Street. At 11.30pm on 30 August she was seen walking her patch (territory) along the Whitechapel Road.
Polly was seen leaving a pub named the Frying Pan at 12.30am in Brick Lane. She went to 18, Thrawl Street drunk and wearing a new bonnet, but was refused a bed for the night since she did not possess the price required (4d). On leaving she stated to the deputy, ‘See what a jolly bonnet I’ve got now.’
At 2.30am, she was met by Ellen Holland on the corner of Osborne Street and the Whitechapel Road. She was drunk and staggering and informed Ellen Holland that she had earned her doss money three times over during the day and had spent it. She refused to go back to Thrawl Street with Ellen Holland and was seen to walk up the Whitechapel Road in the direction of Bucks Row and the London Hospital.
It is my contention that, while in the locality of the London Hospital in the Whitechapel Road, she was approached by a man after 3.20am. She was then taken to Bucks Row, possibly via Woods Dwellings, which is located on the busy Whitechapel Road and opposite the London Hospital. Woods Dwellings gives far greater privacy for access into Bucks Row.
The entry into Woods Dwellings from the Whitechapel Road consists of a small archway, which can be overlooked from the Whitechapel Road. From this entrance to Woods Dwellings, for a distance of about 10 yards, the passage is narrow and covered. The exit from the passage in Winthrop Street, at the side of the Board School, is stepped and slightly wider.
It is worth noting at this point that sites 1, 2, 4 and 5 all consisted of a covered passage. The most efficient way to travel from the London Hospital to the Bucks Row site is via Woods Dwellings. The Ripper’s priorities were always cover and time, in that order, an important consideration when examining how he worked.
Woods Dwellings, the probable route taken by the killer and Chapman to Bucks Row from the Whitechapel Road. Whitechapel Road market can be seen at the entrance to the passage. The passage is unchanged (smells included) since Jack the Ripper’s day in 1888
By 3.30am, which is midway between the stable beat times of 3.15am and 3.45am, the man had led his victim to an alcove at the entrance to a stables, the doors of which were closed. He positioned his victim in the corner of the alcove, placing himself directly behind her. She was now trapped.
He placed his left hand over her nose and mouth, rendering her unconscious. The victim was then placed down on her left side and her throat was cut twice, left to right. The killer was right handed. He was positioned behind her and the flow of blood from her throat was directed away from him.
Brown’s stable as it appeared at the time of the murder. The killer is depicted manoeuvring his victim into the corner of the alcove from which there is no escape
The victim was then turned on her back for better access when the killer proceeded to perform the mutilations. He was either standing or leaning over the victim in the cover of the alcove or on her right. The depth of the alcove in 1888 was deeper than in later years.
Ripperologist Martin Fido reiterated this on 12 May 2001 by making the following statement: ‘It’s my impression that the 20th-century garage building which incorporated the old gateway pushed the frontage forward a little and there would seem to have been a little more depth shown in the 1888 illustrations of the finding of the body.’
The murderer would not have been seen by anyone walking in either direction on his side of the road until they were level with him. These events were reconstructed and he would definitely not have been seen at 3.30am. The mutilations on this victim took less than one minute. The killer had experience in working quickly in adverse conditions. The 3.30am train, passing only yards away, drowned out any noise made by the victim and the killer.
In an unconfirmed report, Mrs Harriet Lilley, living at 7, Bucks Row, claimed to have heard whispering in Bucks Row moments prior to the 3.30am train. She then heard gasps and moans. She went so far as to awaken her husband William, a carman. She then stated that a train went by, drowning any further sounds. (I have checked at the public records office and Mrs Harriet Lilley did live in Bucks Row.) The killer was unconcerned with how long it took to find the body, for he knew he would be back in his lair in less than two minutes.
At 3.40am the body was found by Charles Cross (a carman), who resided at 22, Doveton Street, Bethnal Green. Cross was on his way to work at Pickfords in Broad Street when he found the victim. Cross was joined by Robert Paul (a carter), resident of 30, Foster Street, Whitechapel, who was also on his way to work. After checking for signs of life, they went in the direction of Hanbury Street to seek police help.
At 3.45am PC Neil found the body (unaware that it had already been seen by Cross and Paul at 3.40am). Neil signalled PC Thain with his lamp. Thain happened to be passing Bucks Row at the Brady Street end. PC Mizen arrived after being informed by Cross and Paul in Hanbury Street of their find. PC Thain left the
scene to fetch Dr LIewellyn, who was called from his surgery at 152, Whitechapel Road at 4.00am.
When he arrived at Bucks Row he found the victim on her back, legs drawn up, her throat cut twice. She also had bruising to her face. He noticed that there was only a wineglass and a half of blood beside the body. After a preliminary examination the body was removed by PC Thain, who took the body on an ambulance to Montague Street infirmary workhouse.
Inspector Spratling went to the mortuary to take a description of the body. It was here that the abdominal mutilations were discovered. Dr Llewellyn was called out again to examine these newly discovered injuries. On his arrival he found that the cadaver had been stripped and cleaned by the two mortuary attendants, Robert Mann and James Hatfield. Dr Llewellyn made a full examination of the body at the mortuary. The original autopsy report has been lost but The Times reported:
Doctor Llewellyn stated that, ‘Five of the teeth were missing and there was a slight laceration of the tongue. There was a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw on the right side of the face. That might have been caused by a blow from a fist or pressure from a thumb. There was a circular bruise on the left side of the face, which also might have been inflicted by the pressure of the fingers. On the left side of the neck, about 1in. below the jaw, there was an incision about 4in. in length, [which] ran from a point immediately below the ear. On the same side, but an inch below, and commencing about 1in. in front of it, was a circular incision, which terminated at a point about 3in. below the right jaw. The incision completely severed all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision was about 8in. in length.