1. A Case Study Industrial Revolution Unit Advanced World History

2. Industrial Britain 1750-1900 Discussion Topics: - How did Britain change? -What caused this change? -What were the consequences of this change?  Rapid Urban Growth  Overcrowding  Slums  Alcoholism  Prostitution  Deprivation

3. Consequences of Industrialization: How was Jack the Ripper able to get away with murder? Task 1: Analyze Victims & Crime Scenes

4. East London Advertiser – Saturday 1st September 1888 ANOTHER WHITECHAPEL MYSTERY: HORRIBLE MURDER IN BUCK'S ROW, WHITECHAPEL. The Central News says: Scarcely has the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel some short time ago had time to abate when another discovery is made which, for the brutality exercised on the victim, is even more shocking and will no doubt create as great a sensation in the vicinity as its predecessor. The affair up to the present is enveloped in complete mystery, and the police have as yet no evidence to trace the perpetrators of the horrible deed. The facts are that Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four on Friday morning, when he discovered a woman between 35 and 40 years of age lying at the side of the street with her throat cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done traversing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely. She was discovered to be lying in a pool of blood. She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open, with the bowels protruding. The wound extends nearly to her breast, and must have been effected with a large knife. As the corpse lies in the mortuary it presents a ghastly sight. The victim seems to be between 35 and 40 years of age, and measures five feet two inches in height. The hands are bruised, and bear evidence of having engaged in a severe struggle. There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of the deceased's fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle. Some of the front teeth have also been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks and very much discoloured. Deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front. Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed. The only way by which the police can prosecute an inquiry at present is by finding some one who can identify the deceased, and then, if possible, trace those in whose company she was last seen. In Buck's Row, naturally, the greatest excitement prevails, and several persons in the neighbourhood state than an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor anything beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl. In any case, the police unfortunately will have great difficulty in bringing to justice the murderer or murderers.

5. Mark the injuries sustained by Polly Nicholls onto the diagram.

7. Report following the post mortem examination: "There was a bruise over the right temple. On the upper eyelid there was a bruise, and there were two distinct bruises, each the size of a man's thumb, on the forepart of the top of the chest. There was a bruise over the middle part of the bone of the right hand. There was an abrasion over the ring finger, with distinct markings of a ring or rings. The throat had been severed as before described. the incisions into the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side of the neck. There were various other mutilations to the body, but he was of the opinion that they occurred subsequent to the death of the woman, and to the large escape of blood from the division of the neck. The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore must have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more. The appearance of the cuts confirmed him in the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the neck, had been of a very sharp character. The mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge. He thought he himself could not have performed all the injuries he described, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If he had down it in a deliberate way such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon it probably would have taken him the best part of an hour." Source: http://www.casebook.org/victims/chapman.html

9. “The body was lying on the near side, with the face turned toward the wall, the head up the yard and the feet toward the street. The left arm was extended and there was a packet of cachous in the left hand. The right arm was over the belly, the back of the hand and wrist had on it clotted blood. The legs were drawn up with the feet close to the wall. The body and face were warm and the hand cold. The legs were quite warm. Deceased had a silk handkerchief round her neck, and it appeared to be slightly torn. I have since ascertained it was cut. This corresponded with the right angle of the jaw. The throat was deeply gashed and there was an abrasion of the skin about one and a half inches in diameter, apparently stained with blood, under her right arm. There was a clear-cut incision on the neck. It was six inches in length and commenced two and a half inches in a straight line below the angle of the jaw, one half inch in over an undivided muscle, and then becoming deeper, dividing the sheath. The cut was very clean and deviated a little downwards. The arteries and other vessels contained in the sheath were all cut through. The cut through the tissues on the right side was more superficial, and tailed off to about two inches below the right angle of the jaw. The deep vessels on that side were uninjured. From this is was evident that the haemorrhage was caused through the partial severance of the left cartoid artery.” Source: http://www.casebook.org/victims/stride.html

11. "The body was on its back, the head turned to left shoulder. The abdomen was exposed. The throat cut across. The intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder. A piece of about two feet was quite detached from the body and placed between the body and the left arm, apparently by design. The lobe and auricle of the right ear were cut obliquely through. After washing the left hand carefully, a bruise the size of a sixpence, recent and red, was discovered on the back of the left hand between the thumb and first finger. The face was very much mutilated. There was a cut about a quarter of an inch through the lower left eyelid. The upper eyelid on that side, there was a scratch through the skin on the left upper eyelid, near to the angle of the nose. The right eyelid was cut through to about half an inch. There was a deep cut over the bridge of the nose. This cut went into the bone and divided all the structures of the cheek. We examined the abdomen. The front walls were laid open from the breast bone. The liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument. The abdominal walls were divided in the middle line to within a quarter of an inch of the navel. The skin was retracted through the whole of the cut through the abdomen, but the vessels were not clotted. Nor had there been any appreciable bleeding from the vessels. I draw the conclusion that the act was made after death, and there would not have been much blood on the murderer. The cut was made by someone on the right side of the body, kneeling below the middle of the body.

13. “The whole of the surface of the abdomen and thighs was removed and the abdominal cavity emptied of its viscera. The breasts were cut off, the arms mutilated by several jagged wounds and the face hacked beyond recognition of the features. The tissues of the neck were severed all round down to the bone. The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus and kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side and the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table. The face was gashed in all directions, the nose, cheeks, eyebrows, and ears being partly removed. The lips were blanched and cut by several incisions running obliquely down to the chin. There were also numerous cuts extending irregularly across all the features. The neck was cut through the skin and other tissues right down to the vertebrae, the fifth and sixth being deeply notched. The air passage was cut at the lower part of the larynx through the cricoid cartilage. The skin and tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch. The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone. The left thigh was stripped of skin fascia, and muscles as far as the knee. The left calf showed a long gash through skin and tissues to the deep muscles and reaching from the knee to five inches above the ankle. Both arms and forearms had extensive jagged wounds. The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about one inch long, with extravasation of blood in the skin, and there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition. The lower part of the lung was broken and torn away. The left lung was intact. The pericardium was open below and the heart absent. Source: http://www.casebook.org/victims/mary_jane_kelly.html

15. NICHOLLSCHAPMANSTRIDEEDDOWESKELLY Whole Body Mutilated? Face Mutilated? Organs Missing? Abdomen Opened? Throat Slit? Bruises? Fill out the following chart and track trends:

17. Read and analyze the Witness Evidence Information on the next slides and complete the Witness Statement Table Analyze Witness Statements

18. Source: http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/

19. Witness / VictimAgeHeightShort coatLong coatDark clothesHatWell-dressed Shabbily- dressed MoustacheForeigner Annie Chapman Emily Walter Elizabeth Long Elizabeth Stride J Best & John Gardner William Marshall Matthew Packer PC William Smith James Brown Schwarz Catherine Eddowes Joseph Lawende James Blenkinsop Mary Kelly Mary Ann Cox George Hutchinson Source: http://www.casebook.org/witn esses/

20.  Description Artists’ impression of the Ripper

22. Read through the suspect profiles and summarize each suspect on the following slides

23. Suspect 1: Francis Tumblety (1833- 1903) Nationality : American Occupation : Doctor Source: http://www.casebook.org/suspects/tumblety.html Details: As a young man, Tumblety sold pornography AND drugs he’d stolen from the chemist where he worked. 1850 – Tumblety starts a business as a doctor. He always appears to be rich. Tumblety begins to dress up as a successful General wearing lots of medals, even though he’d never been in the army in his life?!? In Boston, USA he started to throw parties to which he invited leading Generals and politicians, but he always invited only men. He also used to start shouting about how much he hated women, banging his fists on the table and walking quickly around the room. One Colonel asked him why this was, and Tumblety took him into a small room in which he had a collection of uteri (wombs from women’s bodies) in jars on the shelves. Tumblety told a story of how he’d been married as a young man. On his honeymoon he accused his wife of flirting with other men, but she told him he was being daft. Then one day he saw her walking into a building with a man in ‘a disreputable part of town’ (i.e. the red-light district). He went in and found out that before they were married, his wife had been a prostitute. From then on, he said, he ‘gave up on all womankind’. Tumblety moved to Liverpool in March 1888. Tumblety was actually arrested and charged on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders on the 12 th Novemver 1888 – he was free between 7 th & 12 th November? Why might this be important?? (think of the murder dates). He was due to stand trial in December 1888, but escaped to New York (via France) on November 1888. In New York, Tumblety was watched by the New York police department, but they couldn’t arrest him as they’d seen no evidence that he was guilty. He was front-page news in New York, yet amazingly no newspapers in England at the time even mentioned his name!?! 1903 – Tumblety died. 1913 – Chief Inspector John Littlechild (a high-up police chief) described Tumblety in a letter, as a ‘very likely suspect’. 1993 – the letter was rediscovered and Tumblety, who’d been completely forgotten about for 105 years, becomes chief suspect yet again!?!?! Recap/Points to Think About : Did Tumblety have the motive? (a reason for doing the crime). Did Tumblety have the opportunity? (where was he when the crimes were committed?) Does he fit your profile of the murderer? Are there any other things that you notice about Tumblety which may be important in the case? How closely does Francis Tumblety fit your own profile of Jack the Ripper? Does Tumblety’s life give any clues?

24.  Info on Suspect:  Reasons to suspect the guilt of this person:

25. Suspect 2: Montague John Druitt Source: http://www.casebook.org/suspects/druitt.html Details: His appearance matches that of the Ripper very closely The witnesses are close to his age of 31 (28, 30, 34-35, 30) He had dark hair, a moustache, and had a respectable appearance He was found drowned in the river Thames on December 1888. It is thought that his body had been there for about 3 weeks. It was believed to be suicide. Why? Perhaps he was feeling guilty about the terrible murders he had committed. This could also explain why the horrible crimes of Jack the Ripper stopped so suddenly after 5 women were killed. Perhaps the killer himself was dead! Druitt’s father was a doctor, so Druitt may have knowledge about dissecting people and the use of operating knives. He did not live in the East End. He lived in Blackheath and there were no all night train services between London and Blackheath. So how could he have committed the murders??? He would have had to stay in the area, risking detection. BUT he had chambers (an office) near the murder scene. Good cricketer with formidable strength in his arms and wrists (perhaps strong enough to cut through a woman’s neck like a knife through butter) Seemed to be unaffected by losing both his parents ( the characteristics of a heartless killer maybe?) Inspector Montague claims it was Druitt and wrote “From my private information I have little doubt that his own family suspected this man of being the Whitechapel murderer; it was alleged that he was sexually insane” (summer 1889) Recap/Points to Think About : Did Druitt have the motive? (a reason for doing the crime). Did Druitt have the opportunity? (where was he when the crimes were committed?) Does he fit your profile of the murderer? Are there any other things that you notice about Druitt which may be important in the case? How closely does Druitt fit your own profile of Jack the Ripper? Does Driutt’s life give any clues?

26.  Info on Suspect:  Reasons to suspect the guilt of this person:

27. Suspect 3: Michael Ostrog Source: http://www.casebook.org/suspects/ostrog.html Details: Height 5’11’’, dark brown hair & was often dressed in a suit Ostrog was in and out of jail throughout his life for theft and fraud. In 1873, after being arrested in Burton- on-Trent for theft, he took out a gun and tried to shoot the policemen. (Had all this time in jail sent him mad?!?). He spent the next ten years in jail. Arrested again in July 1887. Released from prison in March 1888. He was supposed to report to the police regularly, but didn’t. In October 1888 he is mentioned in a police newspaper as ‘a dangerous man’. By November 1888, he’d gone to Paris, France because he was arrested there on November 18 th (Mary Kelly was murdered in London on November 9 th ). A mad, Russian doctor. A homicidal maniac (someone likely to commit murder). Regularly cruel to women. Carried a collection of knives and other instruments around with him. Recap/Points to Think About : Did Ostrog have the motive? (a reason for doing the crime). Did Ostrog have the opportunity? (where was he when the crimes were committed?) Does he fit your profile of the murderer? Are there any other things that you notice about Ostrog which may be important in the case? How closely does Ostrog fit your own profile of Jack the Ripper? Does Ostrog’s life give any clues?

28.  Info on Suspect:  Reasons to suspect the guilt of this person:

29. Suspect 4: Prince Victor Albert http://www.casebook.org/suspects/eddy.html Details: The Prince was also known as Eddy. This theory goes that Eddy had a sexually transmitted disease that drove him mad and made him kill. He was put into a lunatic asylum after the double murder on September 30 th, but escaped before the next murder was committed on November 9 th. He’d lived for a while in the East End. He was skilful at cutting open deer (could his skills have used on women??). It was also claimed that Eddy committed the crimes whilst he was hypnotised. Also, Eddy has secretly married a poor East End girl and they had a daughter. The Queen (Eddy’s grandmother) was disgusted and his wife was sent to an asylum. She had some friends called Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman and Mary Kelly. The other victim (Kate Eddowes) often used the name Mary Kelly. (Could the Prince have been looking for the real Mary Kelly, and this was a case of mistaken identity?) Recap/Points to Think About : Did Eddy have the motive? (a reason for doing the crime). Did Eddy have the opportunity? (where was he when the crimes were committed?) Does he fit your profile of the murderer? Are there any other things that you notice about Eddy which may be important in the case? How closely does Eddy fit your own profile of Jack the Ripper? Does Eddy’s life give any clues?

30.  Info on Suspect:  Reasons to suspect the guilt of this person:

31. The Royal Conspiracy Theory Not one murderer but three? Details: Prince Albert (also known as Eddy) met a poor girl while he was living with Walter Sickert (an artist) in the East End to see what life was like for poor people. He met and fell in love with Annie Elizabeth Crook and they had a little girl. The Queen became really angry and asked the Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, to deal with the problem. He ordered a raid on the place they were living in, and both Eddy and Annie were taken away, separately. The Queen’s doctor, Sir William Gull was called in and he performed some gruesome experiments on Annie, who ended up insane and having lost her memory. The baby, however, was taken away secretly by the nanny – a woman called Mary Kelly (ring any bells?!?). The baby was left with some nuns while Kelly sunk into a life of prostitution and alcoholism in the East End. After a while, she started to talk about what had happened and rumours began to spread around. Some of her friends heard these, and talked her into blackmailing the government (what does this mean?). By the way, her friends were called Polly Nichols, Lizzie Stride and Annie Chapman. The theory then goes that Sickert, Gull and a coachdriver called John Netley set about silencing the women, by driving round in horse-drawn coach and bumping them off. The figure of Jack the Ripper was invented by Netley to make people think it was just one person – what if the murderers had been driving around in a coach? What might this mean?? The chief of the Police also helped them out. A poor barrister called Montague Druitt (one of the other suspects) was framed by them, and subsequently murdered. Gull died shortly after. Netley tried to run down the daughter, Alice, and was thrown into the Thames by an angry mob. Sickert said that Kate Eddowes had been a case of mistaken identity. Did this lot have the motive? Did they have the opportunity?

32.  Background Info:  Reasons to agree with this conspiracy:

33. Your Name_______________ WHO DO YOU THINK HE WAS? WHY DO YOU THINK THIS PERSON IS “JACK THE RIPPER”? HOW WAS HE ABLE TO GET AWAY WITH IT?