"You are Jack the Ripper"

The widespread excitement caused by the Jack the Ripper murders of 1888 led to a rash of accusations by the general public against 'suspicious' individuals. Some were understandable:

STRANGE SCENE IN WHITECHAPEL. AN INNOCENT SUSPECT MOBBED. LONDON, Wednesday Night.   About six o'clock this evening, a man, whose name was subsequently ascertained to be John Lock, a seaman, was rescued by police from an excited crowd in the neighbourhood of Ratcliffe Highway, who were following him and shouting "Leather Apron" and "Jack the Ripper." The cause was not readily explained. When, hwoever, he was examined at Police Station his light tweed suit was found to bear stains, which was found to be paint, but which the crowd had mistaken for blood. His explanation was perfectly satisfactory; but it was some considerable time before the crowd dispersed, and the man was able to depart.

The above, at least, was a genuine suspicion, whereas the following case sounds like mischief-making:

MISTAKEN FOR "JACK THE RIPPER". - A working man asked Mr. Lushington's advice under the following circumstances. - A few days ago he had occasion to go to the Regent's Canal Docks, when he was followed by a crowd, who charged him with being "Jack the Ripper" and gave him into custody. In answer to Mr. Lushington, the applicant said that he was taken to the police-station and detained there two or three hours. By that detention great injury was done him, and in consequence he lost a job. He believed the men who gave him into custody did it simply out of malice. Mr. Lushington said if that was the case he could bring an action against the persons.

The  murders had, of course, permeated the national consciousness in a unique way. Men used the Ripper as a bogeyman, when threatening women:

SELF-STYLED "JACK THE RIPPER" IN MANCHESTER. On Wednesday morning, at the Manchester City Police Court, a respectably-dressed young man named Stephen Rourke, described as a warehouseman, living in Foster-street, Ardwick, was charged with annoying and using threatening language towards Sarah Burgess, wife of a cab-driver, living in Argyll-street, Hulme. On Wednesday morning, about 20 minutes past 12, as Mrs Burgess was returning home along Lower Moss-lane, the prisoner, she stated, accosted her. She refused to have anything to do with him, but he continued to annoy her, and followed her, as far as Clopton-street. There he asked her it she knew who he was. She replied that she did not, and be said he was "Jack the Ripper," and threatened her with violence unless she complied with his wishes. She avoided him as far as she could, and a young man coming to her assistance the prisoner was given into the custody of Police-constable John Moore. The magistrates remanded the prisoner in order that further enquiries might be made into the case. 

Some women, in turn, were happy to adopt the same language - here, a case in Birmingham:

"She threatened to 'Whitechapel' him. The prosecutrix interefered, whereupon prisoner threatened to 'Jack the Ripper' her, and struck her on the hand with a knife."

The number of drunks who claimed to be 'that Whitechapel bloke' were innumerable; and you have to wonder if the real culprit was lost amidst a sea of false confessions and bogus letter-writing.
   The best account of this behavior is probably from the eccentric diarist Arthur Munby, admittedly a solitary individual, given to questioning young women about their lives and working habits. He had a narrow escape in Shropshire ... a draft of this anonymous letter, published in the Times of 15 October, 1888, was found in his papers:

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

Sir,—I have been a good deal about England of late, and have been witness of the strong interest and widespread excitement which the Whitechapel murders have caused and are causing. Everywhere I have been asked about them; especially by working folk, and most especially by working women. Last week, for instance, in an .agricultural county I shared my umbrella during heavy rain with a maid servant, who was going home. "Is it true, Sir," said she, "that they're a-cutting down the feminine seck in London?" And she explained herself to mean that "they was a'murdering of 'em by ones and twos." This is but one of many examples, and my own main interest in the matter is, that I myself have been taken for the mdrderer. And if I; why not any other elderly gentleman of quiet habits? It may therefore be well to record the fact by way of warning.
    Two days ago I was in one of the mining districts, I had just called on my friend the parson of the parish, and. was walking back in the twilight, alone, across certain lonely, grimy fields among the pits and forges. Suddenly I was approached from behind by a party of seven stout colliers lads, each of them about 18 years old, except their leader, who was a stalwart young fellow of 28 or so, more than 6ft. high. He rudely demanded my name, which, of course, I refused to give. "Then;" said he, "You are Jack the Ripper, and you'll come along wi' us to the police at— naming the nearest town, two miles off. I inquired what authority he had for proposing this arrangement. He hesitated a moment, and then replied that he was himself a constable, and had a warrant (against me, I suppose), but had left it at home. " And," he added fiercely, " if you don't come quietly at once, I'll draw my revolver and blow your brains out." "Draw it, then," said I, feeling pretty sure that he had no revolver. He did not draw it; and I told him that I should certainly not go with him. All this time I noticed that, though the whole seven stood around me, gesticulating and threatening, not one of them attempted to touch me. And, while I was considering how to accomplish my negative purpose, I saw a forge-man coming acioss the field from his work. Him I hailed; and, when he came.up, I explained that these fellows were insulting me, and that, as the odds were seven to one, he ought to stand by me. He was a dull, quiet man, elderly like myself, and (as he justly remarked) quite ready for his tea. But, being an honest workman, he agreed to stand by me; and he and I moved away in spite of the leader of the gang, who vowed that he would take my ally in charge as well as me. The enemy, however, were not yet routed. They consulted toether, and very soon pursued and overtook us; for we took care not to seem as fugitives. But, meanwhile, I had decided what to do, and had told my friend that I would walk with him as far as our ways lay together, and then I would trouble him to turn aside with me, up to the cottage of a certain stout and worthy pitman whom I knew. Thus, then, we walked on over barren fields and slag-heaps for half a mile, surrounded by the seven colliers, who pressed in upon me, but still never touched me, though their leader continued his threats, freely observed that, whatever I might do, I should certainly go with him to the town.  At last we came into the road at a lonesome and murderous-looking spot, commanded on all sides by the mountainous shale-hills of disused pits. Up among these ran the path that led to the pit- men's dwellings which I was making for. When we reached it, I said to my friend the forgeman, "This is our waym" and turned towards the path. "That's not your way," shouted the tall man, "you'll come along the road with us," and he laid his hand on my collar. I shook him off, and informed him that he had now committed an assault, for which I could myself give him in charge. Perhaps it was only post hoc ergo propter hoc, but, at any rate, he made no further attempt to prevent me and my friend from ascending the by-way. He stuck to us, however, he and his mates; swearing that he would follow me all the night, if need were. We were soon on the top of the col, if I may so call it, from, which the pitmen's cottages, lighted within, were visible in the darkness against a starry sky. "That is where I am going," I said aloud. To my surprise, the tall man answered in a somewhat altered tone', " How long shall you be?" "That depends," I replied; "you had better come to the house with me." "No," said he, "I shall wait for you here;" and the forgeman and I walked up to the cottage together. At its door I dismissed my ally with thanks and a grateful coin; and, entering in, I told my tale to my friend the stout pitman and his hearty wife, who heard it with indignation. In less than a minute, he and I sallied from his dwelling in search of the fellows who had dogged me. But they had vanished. Seeing me received and welcomed by people whom they knew, they doubtless felt that pursnit was futile and suspicion vain.
     Now, I do not object. to adventures, even in the decline of—life;. nor do I much blame my antagonists, whether their motive were righteous indignation, or, as is more likely, the hope of reward. But I think them guilty of.a serious and even dangerous error of judgment in not distinguishing between the appearance of Jack the Ripper and that of your obedient servant,
    AN ELDERLY GENTLEMAN.

Read all about it!

Proof that crime has always sold papers:

JAMES KENDRICK, 25, pleaded "Guilty" to a charge of obtaining 1d. by false pretences. On the evening of December 6 the prisoner was selling newspapers in the street shouting "Another horrible murder and mutilation; Jack the Ripper at work again." The prosecutor bought from him a number of the Sun, and looked for an account of the murder, but was unable to find it. He pointed out to the prisoner that there was nothing of the kind in the paper, and the prisoner thereupon took off his coat and offered to fight him. The prosecutor called a constable and gave the prisoner into custody. On the way to the police-station the prisoner threatened him and said he would "act Phoenix Park on him when he got out." The prisoner said he was intoxicated at the time, and "no doubt exceeded the news." Several previous convictions for larceny were proved against him, and it appeared that he had been liberated from prison only two days when he committed this offence. He was sentenced to 21 days imprisonment, with hard labour.

The Times, 21 January, 1890

Thomas Barry, Showman

I've mentioned the case of Thomas Barry before here but there's a much fuller account of his court appearance which I've just posted to the site. If you've wondered what fun was available on the Whitechapel-road on a Saturday night, read below. A great insight into the Victorian entrepreneur. Bear in mind Jack the Ripper's last murder was in November 1888 ... a mere three months before Mr. Barry was prosecuted for using 'representations' of the murders to draw people into his sideshow (I think we're talking about drawings, rather than wax-works, although I may be wrong).

A PENNY SHOW
Thomas Barry, a showman, was indicted at the Central Criminal Court, on Tuesday, before the Recorder, upon the charge of creating a nuisance by exhibiting figures illustrating a show, and thereby causing idle people to assemble and remain in the Queen's highway. Mr. Poland, Q.C., and Mr. Gore prosecuted for the Whitechapel District Board of Works, and Mr. Purcell defended.
    Mr. Poland, in opening the case, said that the defendant was the proprietor of a show at 106 and 107, Whitechapel-road, and the inhabitants thereabouts had complained of the nuisance caused by the show. I had been the custom of the defendant to exhibit outside the place representations of the Whitechapel murders of "Jack the Ripper", various fat people and dwarfs, and all kinds of monstrosities. There was a waxworks inside, and boxing and other performances went on. The price of admission was a penny. Noises were made outside to attract audiences, and large crowds assembled, obstructing the thoroughfare, and causing, he contended, a nuisance.
    A number of witnesses were then called in support of the case for the prosecution. It was stated that a piece called Maria Martin was played, and also Cartouche, the French Jack Sheppard. Each show lasted about twenty minutes to half-an-hour, and the shows followed each other in succession as audiences were collected. There was shouting when an audience was being gathered, and then large crowds were attracted. The showman outside called out that there was a "bearded woman" to be seen inside, and that this woman was caught by Buffalo Bill, and, having long hair and a beard, she represented "half a gorilla and half a woman." There was an imitation policeman in wax outside. There was a fat French woman exhibited inside, and it was stated that she weighed 39st. 11lb., and measured 8ft. around her shoulders, and one of her garments was exhibited outside to show its size. The announcement was also made that there was a "female champion boxer" who boxed three rounds with a tall soldier.
    Police-constable 28 J.R. proved that as many as 200 people had assembled outside the show premises at one time. The pictures that attracted most attention were those relating to the Whitechapel murders, exhibited at shop No.106. One picture showed six women lying down injured and covered in blood, and with their clothes disturbed.
    Police-inspector Cudmore stated that many known thieves loitered among the crowd and gathered outside the premises, and a large number of persons were arrested near the spot for pocket-picking and larceny.
    Henry Tate, in the employ of Mr. Hunt, a cheese-monger of 108 and 109 Whitechapel-road stated that the shop, No.107, was principally used as a "ghost show." Various pieces were played there, including Sweeney Todd. The showman outside kept calling out till the "house" was filled and performers in stage dress appeared every time they wanted to "draw the house full."
    Mr. Poland read a petition, signed by a number of residents in the neighbourhood, which had been presented to the Whitechapel District Board, complaining of the show as an injury to trade and a nuisance to the inhabitants.
    Mr. Purcell put in a counter-petition, signed by forty-three other inhabitants of the locality, saying that the show was not the least nuisance to them.
    Further evidence was given in support of the prosecution by a number of inhabitants living close to the defendant's premises. It was stated that trade had fallen off in consequence of the crowds that gathered.
    Mr. Johnson, a vestryman, said that in connection with the show there had been a barrel-organ grinding, a fog-horn blowing, and a gong being beaten. The organ, however, was done away with about four months ago.
    Mr. Purcell, for the defence, said that the business carried out by the defendant was not one that contravened the law at all. The pictures with reference to the Whitechapel murders were removed a long time ago. He contended that the defendant had not conducted his legitimate business in such a way as to make him amenable to the law. The defendant did not want people to stare outside, but to go into the show, and the roughs and pickpockets who gathered outside were as much a nuisance to him as to his neighbours.
    Witnesses were next called for the defence, being persons living in the neighbourhood, who stated that the defendants business was not a nuisance to them. It was stated that, besides stalls along the road, there was in the thoroughfare a seal and crocodile show under canvas, a cocoanut-shying stand, kinfe-ringing stands, shooting galleries, men drawing teeth and selling corn-plaisters, and these caused equally large crowds to assemble.
    The defendant was called as a witness on his own behalf. He said that for the two shops he paid £245 a year rent. As far as possible he had diminished the noise made to attract people, and he wished to carry on his business with as little annoyance to others as possible.
    In answer to Mr. Poland, the defendant said he could not carry on his business if he discontinued having a showman at the door to call out. He could do without pictures, but it was necessary to show the performers to attract the public.
    After a long consideration, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Mr. Poland said that there was a similar case against a man named Lindley arising in the same neighbourhood. The defendant Lindley said that he would plead guilty.
    Mr. Poland then suggested that both defendants should be allowed to go no their own recognisances to come up for judgment if called upon, and if the inhabitants of the locality were satisfied that there was no further nuisance no more would be heard of the matter. The only object of the prosecution was to stop a nuisance.
    The Recorder adopted this course and the defendants were discharged on entering into their own recognisances in the sum of £100 each to come up for judgment if called upon.

The Era, February 9, 1889

Jill the Ripper?

A fan of this blog alerts me to a new book they've written on the infamous Mary Pearcey case. Here's a guest post from Sarah Beth Hopton that explains all:

A 7.10 pm on a cold Friday night in London, 1890, a clerk named Somerlea Macdonald stepped around what looked like a drunk woman passed out on the sidewalk. He ignored the woman and kept walking toward his home in Belsize Park, but a few steps later, he stopped, compassion forcing him to turn on his heels and see if the woman was all right. He reached down to shake her shoulder, but her body replied stiffly.

Sensing something was terribly wrong, Somerlea made for Swiss Cottage railway station and found the first officer on duty, summoning him to the site. When the officer approached the body, he knelt, shown his bull’s-eye lantern down the length of her body and then pulled back a cardigan jacket covering her face to reveal a ghastly site.

The woman’s neck had been cut from ear to ear, cut so severely her head was nearly severed from her body. The constable blew into his whistle, calling for help, while the clerk dashed off to fetch a neighborhood doctor.

Meanwhile, in another neighborhood two miles away, a perambulator was found leaning against the front gate at No. 34 Hamilton Terrace. A constable walking his beat found the pram and investigated. On top of the bassinet was a bloody apron and inside a bloodied butterscotch candy still wrapped in paper. Two days later, a child is found dead, apparently suffocated and left for dead in a field off Finchley Road.

The woman and child are eventually connected. A coroner’s inquest is called, the verdict of which leads to a magisterial hearing and then a sensational trial at the Central Criminal Court where 24-year old Mary Pearcey will be found guilty and sentenced to hang.

But did Mary Eleanor act alone? Was the murder premeditated or the impulse of a diseased mind? And why did she murder a woman and child whom she’d befriended and treated with the sincerest forms of kindness? Should she have stood alone in the dock or did she commit the crime in collaboration with a lover who, in her words, “had more power over [her] than anyone on earth?”

Did Mary Eleanor receive a fair trial, or was she sentenced to hang because she was ruled by an “ungovernable passion,” and represented all that was wrong with the “modern woman”?

Was her insistence of innocence the fantasy of a deluded mind, or a clue to unraveling her final request? As her effigy was being cast in wax for a display in M. Tussaud’s Chamber of Horrors that would run until the 1970s, Mary Eleanor was giving her solicitor explicit instructions to place an advertisement in a Madrid newspaper, which read:

M.E.C.P. “Did not betray.” M.E.W.

She went to her death with the answer to that riddle on her lips.

To learn more about Mary Eleanor’s life, loves, crimes, and execution, visit the Mary Pearcey blog at: www.sarahbethhopton.com and sign up for the newsletter detailing information about the forthcoming book chronicling Mary Pearcey’s life, “Woman at the Devil’s Door.”

You can also listen to a podcast about Mary Eleanor’s life and explore the theory that she was “Jill the Ripper,” here.

Visit Facebook and become a fan of “Woman at the Devil’s Door,” where you can download photos and video of the crime scene and the characters.

Jack the Ripper

JACK THE RIPPER

I have no interest in who was Jack the Ripper. We'll never know; and I find certain people's fascination with serial killers a bit disgusting. That said, I am fascinated by how early the murders were exploited for commercial interests. I just came across this:-

WHITECHAPEL NUISANCES. - Thos. Barry surrendered to take his trial for creating a nuisance by carrying on a show in the Whitechapel-road, and thereby causing large numbers of disorderly people to assemble and obstruct the public highway. This was a prosecution instituted by the Highway board of Whitechapel. - The defendant was the occupier of two houses in the Whitechapel-road, and it was alleged on the part of the prosecution that, finding his ordinary attractions had entirely failed to arouse public interest he took advantage of the excitement which had been caused by the murders in Whitechapel to exhibit ghastly and disgusting representations of the victims. It was stated that the public exhibited disgust at this feature of the exhibition, and that it was modified to some extent, but the horrible crimes that had taken place in the neighbourhood were still sought to be made objects of attraction to the public. - Mr. Purcell, for the defence, argued that the accused had a right to carry on the business of a showman if he pleased, and the only question for the consideration of the jury was whether he carried on his business in such a manner as to create a nuisance to the public. He calld witnesses to show that exhibitions of all kinds - rifle galleries, fortune telling, cocoanut shying - took place in the same neighbourhood, and that a great deal of the noise and obstruction was caused by these exhibitions, rather than by the defendant's show. - The jury found the defendant "Guilty." - There was a similar charge against another defendant named Lindley, for a nuisance in the same locality, and the accused pleased "Guilty." - The defendants were liberated, on their undertaking to abate the nuisance, and come up for judgment if called upon.

Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, 10 February 1889