Crimes of Jack the Ripper

by Paul Roland

  Perhaps the most curious detail was that her paltry personal possessions – a toothbrush and comb – had been placed on a piece of muslin and neatly arranged at her feet as if part of a bizarre ritual. Or perhaps they had been placed there merely to taunt the police? And then there was the matter of the missing rings. The abrasions on her fingers suggested that they had been wrenched off violently, yet both were clearly imitation gold and worth no more than a few shillings. A thorough search of the local pawn shops failed to locate them. The only possible explanation is that they had been taken by the killer as souvenirs of the kill.

  The inhabitants of number 29 and their neighbours wasted no time in exploiting the commercial potential of their location. Even after the body had been taken away they were still charging a penny to view the murder site from their back windows.

  In a subsequent editorial The Times speculated:

  ‘Intelligent observers who have visited the locality express the utmost astonishment that the murderer could have reached a hiding place after committing such a crime. He must have left the yard in Hanbury Street reeking with blood, and yet, if the theory that the murder took place between 5 and 6 be accepted, he must have walked in almost broad daylight along streets comparatively well frequented, even at that early hour, without his startling appearance attracting the slightest attention. Consideration of this point has led many to the conclusion that the murderer came not from the wretched class from which the inmates of common lodging-houses are drawn. More probably, it is argued, he is a man lodging in a comparatively decent house in the district, to which he would be able to retire quickly, and in which, once it was reached, he would be able at his leisure to remove from his person all traces of his hideous crime . . . The murderer must have known the neighbourhood, which is provided with no fewer than four police stations, and is well watched nightly, on account of the character of many of the inhabitants.’

  Inquest into the death of Annie Chapman

  The full extent of the Ripper’s rudimentary surgical skills can best be gleaned from evidence given at the inquest into the death of Annie Chapman by Dr George Bagster Phillips, the divisional surgeon of police.

  ‘Dr Phillips: I found the body of the deceased lying in the yard on her back. The face was swollen and turned on the right side, and the tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips; it was much swollen. The small intestines and other portions were lying on the right side of the body on the ground above the right shoulder, but attached. There was a large quantity of blood, with a part of the stomach above the left shoulder.

  The throat was dissevered deeply. I noticed that the incision of the skin was jagged, and reached right round the neck. On the back wall of the house, between the steps and the palings, on the left side, about 18in from the ground, there were about six patches of blood, varying in size from a sixpenny piece to a small point, and on the wooden fence there were smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased laid, and immediately above the part where the blood had mainly flowed from the neck, which was well clotted.

  The incisions of the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side of the neck on a line with the angle of the jaw, carried entirely round and again in front of the neck, and ending at a point about midway between the jaw and the sternum or breast bone on the right hand. There were two distinct clean cuts on the body of the vertebrae on the left side of the spine. They were parallel to each other, and separated by about half an inch. The muscular structures between the side processes of bone of the vertebrae had an appearance as if an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck. There are various other mutilations of the body, but I am of opinion that they occurred subsequently to the death of the woman and to the large escape of blood from the neck.

  Coroner: Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed?

  Dr Phillips: I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste.

  Coroner: Was the whole of the body there?

  Dr Phillips: No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.

  Coroner: Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract?

  Dr Phillips: I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.

  Coroner: In your opinion did she enter the yard alive?

  Dr Phillips: I am positive of it. I made a thorough search of the passage, and I saw no trace of blood, which must have been visible had she been taken into the yard. I am of opinion that the person who cut the deceased’s throat took hold of her by the chin, and then commenced the incision from left to right.

  Coroner: Could that be done so instantaneously that a person could not cry out?

  Dr Phillips: By pressure on the throat no doubt it would be possible.

  Coroner: Can you give any idea how long it would take to perform the incisions found on the body?

  Dr Phillips: I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour. The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body.’

  Leather Apron

  On 4 September the national newspapers revealed that the police were hunting a vile individual known locally as Leather Apron. He had been brought to the attention of the authorities because of his reputation for violent assaults upon prostitutes in the area whom he would threaten with a knife, and if they did not pay him he would beat them until they promised to do so.

  His real name was John Pizer but he acquired his nickname from the leather apron he had worn while working as a slipper-maker and which he continued to wear even after he found that extortion was more lucrative.

  As soon as Pizer learned that he was being sought in connection with the Whitechapel killings he made himself scarce and it took the police a week to track him down to a relative’s house at 22 Mulberry Street.

  On 11 September The Times reported his arrest, the first in what proved to be a series of false leads that plagued the investigation from the first.

  ‘Yesterday morning Detective Sergeant Thicke, of the H Division, who has been indefatigable in his inquiries respecting the murder of Annie Chapman at 29, Hanbury Street, Spitalfields, on Saturday morning, succeeded in capturing a man whom he believed to be “Leather Apron.” It will be recollected that this person obtained an evil notoriety during the inquiries respecting this and the recent murders committed in Whitechapel, owing to the startling reports that had been freely circulated by many of the women living in the district as to outrages alleged to have been committed by him . . .

  Shortly after 8 o’clock yesterday morning Sergeant Thicke, accompanied by two or three other officers, proceeded to 22, Mulberry Street and knocked at the door. It was opened by a Polish Jew named Pizer, supposed to be “Leather Apron.” Thicke at once took hold of the man, saying, “You are just the man I want.” He then charged Pizer with being concerned in the murder of the woman Chapman, and to this he made no reply. The accused man, who is a boot finisher by trade, was then handed over to other officers and the house was searched. Thicke took possession of five sharp long-bladed knives – which, however, are used by men in Pizer’s trade – and also several old hats. With reference to the latter, several women who stated they were acquainted with the prisoner, alleged he has been in the habit of wearing different hats. Pizer, who is about 33, was then quietly removed to the Leman Street Police station, his friends protesting that he knew nothing of the affair, that he had not been out of the house since Thursday night, and is of a very delicate constitution. The frie
nds of the man were subjected to a close questioning by the police. It was still uncertain, late last night, whether this man remained in custody or had been liberated. He strongly denies that he is known by the name of “Leather Apron.”’

  Pizer had an alibi for the night Polly Nichols was murdered. He claimed to have been in a lodging house in Holloway Road and his statement was subsequently confirmed by the owner.

  When Annie Chapman was killed he was in hiding at his brother’s house. Nevertheless, he was kept in a cell overnight and included in an identification parade the following day. The only witness was a tramp who swore that Pizer was the man he had seen threatening a woman on the night of the Nichols murder, but on closer questioning the witness proved unreliable and Pizer was released.

  Pizer was ordered to appear before the inquest into the death of Annie Chapman to account for his movements on the night in question and this gave the press their first look at one of Whitechapel’s most unsavoury characters. The East London Observer described him in Dickensian terms:

  ‘He was a man of about five feet four inches, with a dark-hued face, which was not altogether pleasant to look upon by reason of the grizzly black strips of hair, nearly an inch in length, which almost covered the face. The thin lips, too, had a cruel, sardonic kind of look, which was increased, if anything, by the drooping dark moustache and side whiskers. His hair was short, smooth, and dark, intermingled with grey, and his head was slightly bald on the top. The head was large, and was fixed to the body by a thick heavy-looking neck. Pizer wore a dark overcoat, brown trousers, and a brown and very much battered hat, and appeared somewhat splay-footed.

  When Baxter [the Coroner] asked Pizer why he went into hiding after the deaths of Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman, Pizer said that his brother had advised him to do so.

  “I was the subject of a false suspicion,” he said emphatically.

  “It was not the best advice that could be given to you,” Baxter returned.

  Pizer shot back immediately,

  “I will tell you why. I should have been torn to pieces!”

  Annie Chapman became a victim of the Ripper after being turned away from her lodgings

  ‘No mere slaughterer of animals’

  On 26 September the coroner summed up the evidence, including the eyewitness testimony of a Mrs Long, who may have been the first person to give a description of Jack The Ripper.

  ‘At half-past five, Mrs. Long . . . remembers having seen a man and woman standing a few yards from the place where the deceased is afterwards found. And, although she did not know Annie Chapman, she is positive that that woman was the deceased. The two were talking loudly, but not sufficiently so to arouse her suspicions that there was anything wrong. Such words as she overheard were not calculated to do so. The laconic inquiry of the man, “Will you?” and the simple assent of the woman, viewed in the light of subsequent events, can be easily translated and explained. Mrs. Long passed on her way, and neither saw nor heard anything more of her, and this is the last time she is known to have been alive.

  [Neighbour Albert] Cadosch says it was about 5.20 when he was in the backyard of the adjoining house, and heard a voice say “No,” and three or four minutes afterwards a fall against the fence.

  The street door and the yard door were never locked, and the passage and yard appear to have been constantly used by people who had no legitimate business there. There is little doubt that the deceased knew the place, for it was only 300 or 400 yards from where she lodged. The wretch must have then seized the deceased, perhaps with Judas-like approaches. He seized her by the chin. He pressed her throat, and while thus preventing the slightest cry, he at the same time produced insensibility and suffocation. There is no evidence of any struggle. The clothes are not torn. Even in these preliminaries, the wretch seems to have known how to carry out efficiently his nefarious work.

  The deceased was then lowered to the ground, and laid on her back; and although in doing so she may have fallen slightly against the fence, this movement was probably effected with care. Her throat was then cut in two places with savage determination, and the injuries to the abdomen commenced. All was done with cool impudence and reckless daring; but, perhaps, nothing is more noticeable than the emptying of her pockets, and the arrangement of their contents with business-like precision in order near her feet. The murder seems, like the Buck’s-row case, to have been carried out without any cry. Sixteen people were in the house. The partitions of the different rooms are of wood. None of the occupants of the houses by which the yard is surrounded heard anything suspicious.

  The brute who committed the offence did not even take the trouble to cover up his ghastly work, but left the body exposed to the view of the first comer. This accords but little with the trouble taken with the rings, and suggests either that he had at length been disturbed, or that as the daylight broke a sudden fear suggested the danger of detection that he was running. There are two things missing. Her rings had been wrenched from her fingers and have not been found, and the uterus has been removed. The body has not been dissected, but the injuries have been made by some one who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. There are no meaningless cuts. It was done by one who knew where to find what he wanted, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife, so as to abstract the organ without injury to it. No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have recognised it when it was found. For instance, no mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations. It must have been some one accustomed to the post-mortem room.

  The conclusion that the desire was to possess the missing part seems overwhelming. We are driven to the deduction that the mutilation was the object, and the theft of the rings was only a thin-veiled blind, an attempt to prevent the real intention being discovered. It has been suggested that the criminal is a lunatic with morbid feelings. This may or may not be the case; but the object of the murderer appears palpably shown by the facts, and it is not necessary to assume lunacy, for it is clear that there is a market for the object of the murder.

  Within a few hours of the issue of the morning papers containing a report of the medical evidence given at the last sitting of the Court, I received a communication from an officer of one of our great medical schools, that they had information which might or might not have a distinct bearing on our inquiry. I attended at the first opportunity, and was told by the sub-curator of the Pathological Museum that some months ago an American had called on him, and asked him to procure a number of specimens of the organ that was missing in the deceased. He stated his willingness to give £20 for each, and explained that his object was to issue an actual specimen with each copy of a publication on which he was then engaged. Although he was told that his wish was impossible to be complied with, he still urged his request. He desired them preserved, not in spirits of wine, the usual medium, but in glycerine, in order to preserve them in a flaccid condition, and he wished them sent to America direct. It is known that this request was repeated to another institution of a similar character.

  It is, therefore, a great misfortune that nearly three weeks have elapsed without the chief actor in this awful tragedy having been discovered. Surely, it is not too much even yet to hope that the ingenuity of our detective force will succeed in unearthing this monster. It is not as if there were no clue to the character of the criminal or the cause of his crime. His object is clearly divulged. His anatomical skill carries him out of the category of a common criminal, for his knowledge could only have been obtained by assisting at post-mortems, or by frequenting the post-mortem room. If Mrs. Long’s memory does not fail, and the assumption be correct that the man who was talking to the deceased at half-past five was the culprit, he is even more clearly defined. In addition to his former description, we should know that he was a foreigner of dark complexion, over forty years of age, a little taller than the deceased, of shabby-genteel appearance, with a brown deer-stalker hat on his head, and a dark
coat on his back.’

  A verdict of wilful murder against a person or persons unknown was then entered.

  It is thought that Mrs Long had formed the impression that Chapman’s companion was a foreigner from his accent, as she didn’t see his face. For many years this has been understood to mean that he was a European, most likely a Jew, but evidence recently uncovered points to the possibility that he might have been an American, which would tie in with the coroner’s story of the doctor who expressed an interest in purchasing anatomical specimens.

  A surplus of suspects

  Contrary to contemporary public opinion and the claims made by an impatient press, the police made exhaustive inquiries in the area following the murder of Annie Chapman, visiting over 200 common lodging houses and following every single lead offered by anxious residents, all of which led to a dead end. Then, as now, there were people in the habit of making false confessions, either because they were mentally disturbed or because they were seeking attention. And, of course, there were many false and malicious claims made against innocent people which the police were obliged to investigate.

  During September Sir Charles Warren came under increasing pressure from the Home Office, which wanted assurances that the police would be making an imminent arrest. In an effort to placate them, he submitted a confidential report in which he detailed the individuals currently under suspicion.

  ‘No progress has yet been made in obtaining any definite clue to the Whitechapel murderers. A great number of clues have been examined and exhausted without finding anything suspicious. A large staff of men are employed and every point is being examined which seems to offer any prospect of a discovery.