The Legend of Jack the Ripper

Ch 1: Every story has it's beginning

“The Murderer Strikes Again”

This was the headline in almost all the newspapers throughout much of the autumn. And though it seems like ages since the Whitechapel murderer finally ended his atrocity one can only imagine how terrifying it was, living and working so close to the site.

As a journalist for the East London Observer, I was at the center of the events which has caused widespread chaos within my heart. And like any citizen it was a reign of terror. Though most of those activities frequented during the autumn of 1888, the horrors of the city started way before.

It all began on the morning of September 5th 1873. It was exactly 6.30 am early morning when the police patrolling unit 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. It looked rather unusual and foreign so they went closer to check what it was. And what they saw was so horrifying, that they would remember it for years to come.

The patrolling unit discovered that the floating object was actually the left side of a woman's torso. One of the three policemen on board, 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 divisional surgeon at that time, saw them and pronounced that the trunk was dumped in the water, near about twelve hours before the discovery.

The police at once commenced a thorough search of the river. During this time Henry Locke, a policeman in the employ of the South-Western Railway Company, without knowing of the previous discovery, found 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 a very sharp knife, and a saw had also been used. Inspector Starkey of the Thames Police took custody of these remains. Soon after, 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 attached, was found by PC John Parker off Limehouse. Judging by the conditions of the remains, it was evident 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 being searched 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.

In an almost desperate attempt they hung the face on a mechanical frame and kept it on display at 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 and this restricted the identification process. Upon closer inspection, the attending Surgeon Dr. Thomas Bond reported that the body was hacked indeed but according to his opinion it wasn't brutal but rather a careful dissection. He theorized that whoever is responsible for the act had to have some 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 that it nearly made it impossible to identify. Photos were taken and passed around the city, and a reward of £200 was issued, but after nearly two weeks nothing had come of it. 

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 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 were 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, 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 an unidentified woman found dead, but rather something entirely different. Could the perpetrator of the previous case be the person responsible for this incident?