by Cina, Joshua A. Perper, Stephen J. ; Cina, Joshua A. Perper, Stephen J.
A total of five women were definitely killed by the Ripper, all East End prostitutes, but the total number of victims may have reached 11. The five “confirmed kills”
were murdered over an interval of 10 weeks between August and November 1888.
Mary Ann “Polly” Nichols, a married 42 year-old woman with five children, was the first widely acknowledged victim. She was found by two men on their way to work at 3:40 in the morning on Friday, August 31, 1888. She was lying on her back with her clothing in disarray, still quite warm. Her throat had been slashed twice with the second cut almost separating the head from the body. According to Doctor Henry Llewellyn who examined the body, she had also suffered a very deep wound on her lower abdomen “running in a jagged manner” together with “several other incisions running across the abdomen” and “three or four similar cuts” on her right side “all of which had been caused by a knife which had been used violently and downwards.”
Over the preceding 2 months two other prostitutes had been killed but their deaths had not been initially linked to each other by either the police or the media.
With the murder of Mary Nichols, however, the newspapers claimed that a serial killer was running amuck in the city. On September 1, 1888, The Star reported,
“Have we a murderous maniac loose in East London? It looks as if we had. Nothing so appalling, so devilish, so inhuman – or, rather non-human – as the three Whitechapel crimes have ever happened outside the pages of Poe or De Quincey.
The unraveled mystery of “The Whitechapel Murders” would make a page of detective romance as ghastly as The Murders in the Rue Morgue (a mystery novel of Edgar Alan about a gruesome murder committed by a monstrous (sic) ape). The hellish violence and malignity of the crime, which we described yesterday, resemble in almost every particular the two other deeds of darkness, which preceded it.
Rational motive there appears to be none. The murderer must be a Man Monster, and when Sir Charles (The Lord Mayor) has done quarrelling with his detective service he will perhaps help the citizens of East London to catch him.” The Star went on to say that, “There is a terribly significant similarity between this ghastly crime and the two mysterious murders of women which have occurred in the same district within the last three months. In each case the victim has been a woman of Saucy Jack (MD?)
17
abandoned character, each crime has been committed in the dark hours of the morning, and more important still as pointing to one man, and that man a maniac, being the culprit, each murder has been accompanied by hideous mutilation.”
It is possible that these three crimes were linked, but there are some inconsistencies in the killer’s modus operandi. The first alleged victim, Emma Elizabeth Smith, survived for 2 days and related that she was beaten, robbed and raped by a gang of three or four young men who also shoved a blunt object into her vagina resulting in severe lacerations and hemorrhage. The second supposed victim, a middle-aged prostitute by the name of Martha Tabram, had a total of 39 stab wounds mostly in the areas of her breasts, belly, and groin. She had been sexually assaulted but her throat was not cut and she was not disemboweled. Clearly these were cruel and sadistic crimes but, despite the assertions of the columnist, critical analysis of these cases suggests that at least the first murder was likely not committed by the Ripper.
The mechanism of injury in this case was blunt force rather than cutting, the latter being a hallmark of the Ripper killings. Martha Tabram, on the other hand, may well have been killed by the Ripper and may represent the primitive efforts of a serial killer who was honing an evolving craft.
The killings triggered a growing sense of fear amongst the inhabitants of the East End fueled, no doubt, by the sensational press coverage. The Daily Telegraph noted that, “At the present moment the nerves of the Metropolis are stirred and thrilled by the appalling Whitechapel murder; while in the immediate neighbourhood (sic) of the scene of the tragedy nervousness has been aggravated to the proportions of a panic.” The murder also prompted the local Whitechapel police, headed by Detective Inspector Edmund Reid, to call for assistance from Scotland Yard who dispatched Detective Inspector Frederick Abberline to oversee the investigation. Additional manpower was mustered and deployed to police London’s East End.
The second victim, Annie Chapman, aged 47, was discovered by John Davis at about 6:00 AM on September 8. A Spitalfields Market porter, he went downstairs after having had a cup of tea and discovered her in the rear yard of 29 Hanbury Street. Annie’s throat had also been savagely cut and her body mutilated with her uterus and portions of her bladder removed in a manner which suggested that her attacker had anatomical knowledge. The organs could not be located and had presumably been taken away as trophies. She had been partially disemboweled with her intestines placed above her right shoulder but still connected with the body by shards of skin and tissue. Her stomach had been partially removed and placed on her left shoulder along with some skin fragments and her rings had been torn from her fingers. The only possible clue was a leather-apron soaked in water found nearby. Dr. George Bagster Phillips MBBS, MRCS, the Police Surgeon for the Metropolitan Division which covered London’s Whitechapel district stated at the subsequent inquest:
The left arm was placed across the left breast. The legs were drawn up, the feet resting on the ground, and the knees turned outwards. The face was swollen and turned on the right side.
The tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The tongue was evidently much swollen. The front teeth were perfect as far as the first molar, top and bottom 18
3 The Alpha Killers: Three Prolific Murderous Doctors
and very fine teeth they were. The body was terribly mutilated ... the stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but was evidently commencing. He noticed that the throat was dissevered deeply; that the incision through the skin were jagged and reached right round the neck...On the wooden paling between the yard in question and the next, smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased lay, were to be seen. These were about 14 inches from the ground, and immediately above the part where the blood from the neck lay.
The doctor stated that the instrument used on the throat and abdomen was the same.
It must have been a very sharp knife with a thin narrow blade at least 6–8 in. in length, probably longer. The cuts could have been done by the type of instrument
“a medical man” might use for postmortem purposes, but not a routine surgical instrument. Blades used by the slaughter men might have caused them but knives used by those in the leather trade would not be long enough, in his opinion, to have inflicted these wounds. He felt there were indications that the killer knew anatomy.
He went on to surmise that deceased had been dead at least 2 hours prior to his arrival on scene, probably more, and that she had entered the yard alive. His observations could easily have earned him a starring role in CSI: London.
Only half an hour before the discovery of her body, Annie had been seen by a park keeper’s wife in the company of a somewhat shabbily but respectably dressed man in his forties wearing a deerstalker (the kind of cap worn by Sherlock Holmes).
On Sunday, 2 days after the crime, the police arrested a Polish Jew named John Pizer. He was promptly nicknamed “Leather Apron” due to the evidence (later proven unrelated to the murder) at the scene but he had unshakable alibis. After his release the killings continued and the hysteria grew resulting in a wave of anti-Semitism. Several members of the local Jewish community were beaten because of a widespread belief that a God-fearing, Christian Englishman simply could not have committed such a crime.
On September 27 a letter written in red ink was received by the Central News Agency addressed “Dear Boss.” The author took credit for the murders and signed his name as “Jack the Ripper.” Though some detectives at Scotland Yard believed the letter was a publicity stunt, its authenticity was somewhat validated a few days later. Elizabeth Stride, known as Long Liz, was the third certain victim. It ap
pears she was attacked while walking home from a local bar. She was discovered by Louis Diemschutz when he turned his pony and carriage into the yard behind 40
Berner Street at 1:00 AM Sunday September 30. Liz had deep slashes to her neck but she was not disemboweled. From the position of the corpse it was presumed that the murderer had intended to mutilate her but was apparently was disturbed by the arrival of the cart. An examination of the body established that she had only been dead for some 15–30 minutes prior to discovery. The fourth victim Catherine Eddowes, aged 46, was found inside London at Mitre Square by P.C. Watkins less than an hour after Elizabeth Stride had taken her ill-fated walk. She was lying on her back in a pool of blood having been savagely stabbed and cut. Her throat was slit, her face disfigured with her nose partially cut off, and her abdomen was flayed open. Like Annie Chapman, some of her internal organs had been removed and taken, most notably her uterus and left kidney. Trust us, these organs are not easy to get to unless you know your anatomy and know where to look. Her stomach was cut open and most of her intestines had been ripped out. According to the police she Saucy Jack (MD?)
19
“looked like a pig in a butcher’s shop.” Her right ear had also been partially amputated in partial fulfillment of the prophecy of the “Dear Boss” letter: “The next job I do I shall clip lady’s (sic) ears off and send to the police officers just for jolly.” The Ripper had time to complete his morbid fantasy in this case.
A postcard to the press on October 1 described the “double event” of September 30 and referred to the “Dear Boss” letter which had not been published. In this note, the killer referred to himself as “Saucy Jack.” This was followed by a letter beginning with the greeting “From Hell” to Mr. George Lusk, Chairman of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee. This note, signed by Jack the Ripper, was accompanied by ½ of a human kidney. Other letters of dubious authenticity were received by Mr. Lusk and other agencies.
The fifth and possibly the last victim was 25 year-old Mary Jane Kelly. She was murdered in her home at 4:00 AM on Friday November 9. This was the killer’s most savage and gruesome attack. Kelly, unlike all the other victims, had been killed indoors affording the killer more time to commit his unspeakable crime.
Resultantly, the defilement of her body was far more extensive than previously seen. Most of the flesh had been stripped from her body with her internal organs placed around the room. Her face was mutilated beyond recognition. And her heart had been removed as a personal trophy. The widespread and sensational coverage in the media fueled the public’s panic and placed intense pressure on London’s police and Scotland Yard. Fear was not, of course, the only emotion the murder inspired. Morbid curiosity was also rampant with the murder sites becoming tourist attractions. The Telegraph reported that the “house and the mortuary were besieged by people” and that a good trade had been established in charging a penny a time to view the “blood stained spot in the yard.” Others made a living by selling waxwork tableaus that reconstructed the murder scenes. As cold as this sounds, we currently behave no differently. Wax was replaced by film then television then DVDs to meet the demands of the marketplace. Then the Internet came along allowing us to watch suicides and murders in real time.
In their attempts to catch the killer, the police used bloodhounds and dispatched undercover police officers dressed as prostitutes. The efficacy of this ploy is questionable since most London police officers were men. The Lord Mayor of London announced a reward of 500 pounds for information leading to the arrest of the perpetrator. On October 13, 1888, the police conducted a thorough house-to-house search of the entire Whitechapel area but found nothing. There was mounting dissatisfaction with the investigation, especially amongst local businessmen who found that the murders frightened customers away. Local prostitutes, whose business had plunged precipitously, were badly in need of a financial bailout. Then, abruptly, the prototypical “Ripper” murders stopped.
Though the murderer was never found there were a number of suspects, the most famous being the eldest son of King Edward VII, Prince Albert Victor, the Duke of Clarence. This theory makes for a great story but the prince’s involvement is unlikely. Similarly, Queen Victoria’s doctor, Sir William Gull, has been accused of the crimes and portrayed as the killer in fictional renditions of the murders but the facts militate against his involvement. The most legitimate suspects appear to be a Polish barber/surgeon, George Chapman (real name Severin Klosowski), who had 20
3 The Alpha Killers: Three Prolific Murderous Doctors
poisoned three of his wives and Montague John Druitt. Druitt, a lawyer, was the son of a doctor and had some familiarity with his father’s work. He committed suicide in December 1888, very close to the time the murders stopped. Other possibilities include “Dr” Francis Tumblety, a misogynistic quack doctor connected to the deaths of some of his patients; Aaron Kosminski, a Polish Jew who later died in an insane asylum; Sir John Williams, a friend of Queen Victoria and the obstetrician to her daughter, Princess Beatrice; a midwife (“Jill the Ripper”); John Pizer (“Leather Apron”); and Dr. Thomas Neill Cream (who we will discuss shortly).
Obviously the medical community is over-represented in this short list.
It is rather difficult to understand why the Jack the Ripper murders raised such persistent, worldwide interest and prompted the creation of so many books and movies. The savagery of the attacks and the public’s panic and anger over the butchery explains the initial interest, but it doesn’t explain why “Ripperologists” busy themselves with the case over 100 years later. Over the past century, there have been many serial killers who murdered tens and, possibly, hundreds of victims compared to the paltry 5–11 victims killed by Jack the Ripper. The Ripper stabbings, slashings, and mutilations were certainly cruel but even more horrible manners of homicide have been reported. In the Ripper cases, all of the victims were prostitutes (or “sex-workers”
as we call them today) who are known to be at risk for violent death and do not usually elicit much sympathy or public interest. Perhaps our infatuation with this serial killer resides in the mystery itself. This prolific killer could vanish into thin air and blend into society without arising any suspicion. He could be your barber, your lawyer, your midwife, your doctor. To date more than 200 works of non-fiction have been published about Jack the Ripper making him one of the most written about criminals of the past century. In 2006, Jack the Ripper was selected by the BBC History Magazine and its readers as the worst Briton in history. Now that is impressive!
In looking at this case through the binoculars of modern criminology one easily recognizes some of the typical characteristics of serial killers in general and medical murderers in specific including:
– Assault techniques and mutilation indicative of anatomical knowledge;
– Features of “missionary type” serial murderers claiming to “punish sinning whores” and cleanse the world of their polluting presence;
– Gradual progression in the viciousness of the attacks as the homicidal fantasy is refined and perfected;
– Ritualistic arrangements of disemboweled organs implying ultimate control and unreserved power combined with underlying sadistic sexuality;
– Removal of physical “mementos” designed to objectify the murderer’s ownership of the victim and to provide a record of the killing to facilitate re-enactment of the homicidal fantasy. Removal of the heart of one of the victims is also clearly symbolic as the heart symbolizes both love and bravery. In removing the heart of the victim the murderer stole her very living essence; by taking her uterus, he stripped the victim of fertility, and;
– Feeling a need to communicate with the police with taunting letters and boasting of invulnerability.
Was Jack the Ripper a physician? Possibly, but maybe not. His contemporary, Dr. Thomas Neill Cream was.
Dr. Thomas Neill Cream: The Misogynistic Serial Killer
21
Dr. Thomas Neill Cream: The Misogynistic Ser
ial Killer
Either biology or God or both have bound man and woman together in an everlasting partnership, an indivisible link forged by love and passion. Without the company of a fertile woman, the last man on earth would die lonely (and very tense) mourning the end of humankind. If this irrevocable bond is maintained, our species is virtually assured of its future. Haters of women, misogynists, subvert the fundamental union of man and woman as colleagues, friends, lovers, and soulmates.
Some misogynists abuse women in the workplace or harass them in bars. Others poison them.
Dr. Thomas Neill Cream hated women, especially lower-class women and prostitutes, and he killed seven of them in the late 1800s. He was born in Glasgow, Scotland on May 27, 1850, the first of eight children of William and Mary Cream. In 1854, the Creams migrated to the frontier of Wolfe’s Cove, Quebec, Canada where his father found a job with the province’s top shipbuilding and lumber firm. He came to own an independent lumber company and all of his children except Thomas entered into the family business. Thomas never displayed much interest in lumber choosing instead to spend his time reading books and teaching Sunday school. He was resolute to be a doctor from an early age. In September 1872, Thomas left the Cream Lumber Mill to start his medical studies at the well-known and respected McGill University in Montreal.
Throughout his college years, he appeared to be a somewhat stiff-collared dandy, very much self-conscious of his attire. According to the records of McGill University, Cream was a thoroughly average student with an intense interest in drugs. He wrote his doctoral thesis on the topic of chloroform, an anesthetic which is poisonous when used in high doses. He earned his degree of Doctor of Medicine and Master of Surgery in 1876. Following graduation, Cream apparently set fire to his lodgings in order to collect $350 in insurance money. In retrospect, it appeared that the arson was a harbinger of much more severe crimes.
In 1876, as a full-fledged doctor, Cream prepared to leave town and take advantage of better professional opportunities in England. However, when he was just about to leave he was confronted by an angry family led by the shotgun-toting father of a young woman named Flora Brooks (whom Cream had seduced and then abandoned). Flora had recently been very ill, and while being examined by her family doctor, she admitted that she had an abortion performed by Cream. Holding him at gunpoint, the irate father forced Cream to return to town and marry his daughter.