The murderer strikes again. "
This was the headline in almost all the newspapers throughout much of the autumn.
It's been years since the Whitechapel murderer finally ended his atrocity. Living and working at that place in so much proximity to the time was terrifying indeed, even for men.
As a journalist for the East London Observer, I was at the centre of the events, which has caused widespread chaos within my heart. You will find many reports concerned with the horrors of the Whitechapel district, but as they say, every myth and every legend has its origin. However, somehow, the true origin was rarely talked about.
It all began on the morning of September 5th, at exactly 6.30 am in 1873, when a police patrolling unit, who was doing their regular patrolling on the Thames river, without knowing that their regular patrol would turn into something so dreadful that they would remember throughout the rest of their life.
As the patrolling unit was moving through 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. And what they saw was so horrifying that they would remember it for years to come. The patrolling unit discovered that it was the left side of a woman's torso. One of the three policemen that was present on the boat, called 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 then, the divisional surgeon at that time, saw them and pronounced that the trunk was dumped in the water, about twelve hours before the discovery was made.
The police at once decided to send a search party to search the river. Henry Locke, a policeman in the employment of the South-Western Railway Company, made another discovery without knowing of the previous event. He discovered 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 some kind of a sharp knife, and a saw had also been used. Inspector Starkey of the Thames Police took custody of these remains. As the search continued, a portion of the lungs was found by Inspector Charles Marley, of the Thames Police, under an arch of the 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 still attached to it, 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 of the victim, as 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 likely the cause of her death.
As the area was searched thoroughly
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 forearm 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 hung 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 he was of the opinion that it wasn't brutal. It was a careful dissection. He theorised that whoever is responsible for the act had to have anatomical knowledge and expertise on the matter in question.
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 the block, to view the corpse, but no one could be sure that it was who they were looking for, indeed 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 after almost two weeks after that discovery, nothing came up in response.
I remember reading the Lancet, a popular newspaper of that time, which was the first to be present on the scene, reported its article:
"There is a 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 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."
I remember, Mr. Birch, one of my senior colleagues, first proposed the idea that there was more to the story than what the police are saying. He wanted to pursue the case, but he was denied any help from our supervisor.
The news was on the headline quite a few times, but the east end had too many things to worry about.Some had more importance than this news. The case was closed shut,as a case of 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 victim's 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 was responsible was trying to decompose the body. Clearly, it was evident that it wasn't just a case about unidentified women found dead but rather something entirely different. Could the perpetrator of the previous case also be the one to blame for this incident?
It was not clear, and 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 an unidentified woman. Surely, there were no new surprises down the alley,the city went back to its regular. With no further information, there was no way to make any leads concerning the mysterious body dismemberment.
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 soon as we got the news,i was sent in as a representative of East End Observer, and after reaching there i learned from the police and witnesses that 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, and 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.