<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Blog</title><description><![CDATA[BlogMapProvider]]></description><link>http://louis-j-sheehan.org/Blog/page1.aspx</link><language>en-us</language><generator>Parallels Plesk Sitebuilder 4.5 for Windows (Blog module v4.5.221.27483)</generator><item><title>participation    7.par.001001   Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire </title><pubDate>Saturday, 14 November 2009 12:23:28</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ennifer Furio devised a project of writing letters to serial killers
to see how they would respond, and Robin Gecht and Eric Spreitzer both
sent letters that she printed in her book, <em>The Serial Killer Letters</em>.&nbsp;<p>Spreitzer
came first.&nbsp; &nbsp;Furio says that he had turned himself in when the case
was initially investigated (although he did not).&nbsp; He told her that he
felt badly about his involvement in the crimes, and had even passed out
at the sight of all the blood, but insisted that he'd done it because
he'd been afraid of Gecht and his shotgun.&nbsp; Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire &nbsp; "I never did bad things
alone," he claimed.&nbsp; She excuses him as being weak, vulnerable,
directionless, illiterate, and an easy target, thanks to a bad home
life and substance abuse.&nbsp; Gecht had offered him a job when he was down
on his luck and made some empty promises.&nbsp; According to Spreitzer,
Gecht then blackmailed him with obscene photographs that he said he
would send to the police.&nbsp; Furio's assessment is that he was sweet and
gentle, and failed to come across as a murderer.&nbsp; What he hoped for,
during the time he had left before execution (these letters were
published prior to the commutation of his sentence), was the love of a
good woman, preferably someone who would marry him.</p><p>He insisted
that the murders were not planned; instead, they were random attacks.&nbsp;
&nbsp;He had driven the van and Robin would order him to stop whenever he
saw a woman who appealed to him—and he was always on the lookout for
one with sizable breasts.&nbsp; Spreitzer believed that the Kokoraleis
brothers were also forced to do these things, but he did not really
know them well.&nbsp; And like many offenders who have little thought for
the victims and feel sorrier for themselves, he believed he was too
young to die.</p><div class="image_flr"><img src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/trutv.com/graphics/photos/serial_killers/partners/chicago_rippers/10-1-Robin-Gecht.jpg" alt="Robin Gecht "><div class="image_caption">Robin Gecht </div></div>Furio
was curious about Gecht's obsession with women's breasts.&nbsp; &nbsp;He told her
it was "a thing with my entire family."&nbsp; He said that from his
great-grandfather onward, each male member of his family had married a
woman with large breasts.&nbsp; He expressed great satisfaction with his
former wife, whom he said was a size 39D.&nbsp;<p>He insisted that he was
not a serial killer and had had no part in the crimes.&nbsp; &nbsp;He had never
murdered anyone.&nbsp; He also said that the things printed about him in
newspapers and books were the result of Kokoraleis's stupid joke, which
got repeated again and again until people believed it.&nbsp; He claimed that
the primary book on the subject had been based on police bias.&nbsp; He also
informed her that two of the charges had been dropped and that he would
be released from prison sooner than expected.&nbsp; However, his persistent
bid for DNA testing was stymied over and over again.</p><p>The
Mansonesque type of killer is rare—the person who can persuade others
to kill or harm others for him.&nbsp; &nbsp;According to three confessions, Gecht
was exactly that type of person.&nbsp; While Manson's brood was larger, the
three men who followed Gecht were just as deadly, and it's quite
unusual to have four people involved in such an extensive string of
sexually sadistic murder.</p><div class="image_flr"><img src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/trutv.com/graphics/photos/serial_killers/partners/chicago_rippers/10-2-Serial-Murderers-&amp;-The.jpg" alt="Serial Murders and Their Victims"><div class="image_caption"><em>Serial Murders and Their Victims</em></div></div>Eric W. Hickey, a criminologist who published a study involving over three hundred serial killers, offered a line in <em>Serial Murderers and Their Victims</em>&nbsp;that
seems appropriate for this crew: "For some multiple killers, murder
must be simultaneously a participation and a spectator endeavor; power
can be experienced by observing a fellow conspirator destroy human
life,&nbsp; Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire&nbsp;&nbsp; possibly as much as by performing the killing.&nbsp; The pathology of
the relationship operates symbiotically."&nbsp; The killers each add
something to the other<st1:personname w:st="on">'</st1:personname>s excitement.&nbsp; Perhaps what they could not do alone, they could do within the chemistry of the dangerous association.<div class="image_flr"><img src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/trutv.com/graphics/photos/serial_killers/partners/chicago_rippers/10-3-Robin-Gecht.jpg" alt="Robin Gecht as teenager"><div class="image_caption">Robin Gecht as teenager</div></div>According
to the study, 74% of team killers are white; female killers participate
with males around one-third of the time; and the majority of cases
involve only two offenders working together.&nbsp; &nbsp;Of serial murder
victims, some 15% were murdered by team killers and, in the majority of
cases, the victims were strangers.&nbsp; Sometimes the team leader or
dominant partner sends the others out to do what he wants, and
sometimes he participates.&nbsp; One person always maintains psychological
control.<br/><table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%"><tr><td><a href="http://louis-j-sheehan.org/Blog/page1/2009/11/14/64f23819-c63e-4f3d-9e39-734299b19df3.aspx">Comments (0)</a></td></tr></table>]]></description><link>http://louis-j-sheehan.org/Blog/page1/2009/11/14/64f23819-c63e-4f3d-9e39-734299b19df3.aspx</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://louis-j-sheehan.org/Blog/page1/2009/11/14/64f23819-c63e-4f3d-9e39-734299b19df3.aspx</guid></item><item><title>serial  44.ser.000200   Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire </title><pubDate>Sunday, 08 November 2009 04:44:39</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<p><span>&nbsp;Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire&nbsp; While the
crimes of Jack the Ripper may never be solved, it's also clear that
people will continue to try to do so, some with new ideas about former
suspects and some with new suspects.</span></p><p><span><div class="image_flr"><img src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/trutv.com/graphics/photos/serial_killers/notorious/ripper/19_Black_Magic_Rituals.jpg" alt="Jack the Rippers Black Magic Rituals by Ivor Edwards"><div class="image_caption"><em>Jack the Rippers Black Magic <br>Rituals</em> by Ivor Edwards</div></div>Ivor Edwards's 2003 book, <em>Jack the Ripper's Black Magic Rituals</em>,
makes a contribution in the latter genre, and his ideas certainly make
us rethink the crimes. One might believe that with the vast popularity
of Dan Brown's <em>The DaVinci Code</em>, a book like this that relies
on codes, ciphers, and sacred geometry would be like a nightlight to
moths, but the Introduction by occult scholar Charles Henry makes it
seem rather daunting. It's much clearer when Edwards later lays it out,
but this is no fast-paced, factoid-laden riddle. Instead, reading this
theory requires sustained concentration to follow the logic from one
crime to another, and it's reminiscent of the way die-hard fans of the
Zodiac killer have created intricate games out of his alleged
convoluted formulas.</span></p><p><span>In short, Jack the Ripper now
comes across as an intelligent magician with a clear sense of purpose,
an understanding of geographical geometry, and the graceful movements
of a cat.&nbsp; Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire <br></span></p><p><span>Edwards begins by claiming that in the
entire history of the investigation of the Whitechapel crimes, both
then and now, no one before him had ever thought to measure the actual
distance from one crime scene to another. He does so and his results
are startling. The distances are strikingly consistent, as if these
could not possibly have been random murders but were planned for those
locations—including the room where Mary Kelly died. Like a spider
waiting for passing flies, the violence was situation specific. And it
had a sinister program.</span></p><p><span>After detailing each murder
within this new framework, Edwards claims that most of the theories
about the Ripper's motives and behavior are erroneous. He was not a
sexual killer, his behavior was not escalating, and he did not end the
spree for any reason other than that he was finished with what he had
set out to do. He had set the number at five and he had accomplished
that.</span></p><p><span>In fact, this suspect was twice questioned by
the police, and many people who knew him believed he was Jack the
Ripper, including his lover.</span></p><p><span>Edwards makes a case
that Jack the Ripper was a man named Dr. Robert D'Onston Stephenson, a
former military surgeon who had studied the Black Arts in Africa and
had published an article about it. He eluded the law in London so
easily, in part because his movements were inherently quiet, and in
part because he was a self-committed patient at a hospital in
Whitechapel, with easy access for getting out and in again. It was
close to the crime scenes.</span></p><p><span>Prior to killing anyone,
he had walked the Whitechapel streets to learn how they lay, mapping
locations according to the shape of a sacred symbol known as the <em>Vesica Piscis</em>,
a design that had purportedly been used for the Great Pyramid,
Stonehenge, and the Jerusalem Temple, among others. He'd apparently
told others that the murders had been by design at that, with five,
they were finished.</span></p><p><span>Stephenson, known to his
associates as D'Onston, had met Madame Blavatsky, co-founder of the
Theosophical Society, and was apparently easily swayed by the idea that
there are hidden laws of nature which magicians and occultists can
manipulate for greater power. He liked people to know that he was such
a person. In fact, he claimed to have murdered a female witch doctor
and may have murdered his own wife just a year before the Whitechapel
killings began. She disappeared in 1887and no one knows what happened
to her.</span></p><p><span>While this is not the first time that
D'Onston has been proposed as a candidate for Red Jack, it may be the
first time someone has made a point of tracing out the murders in a
manner the supports the idea of occultic sacrifices instead of serial
sexual murders. Edwards provides maps and photographs to show how the
murders actually lay out according to a complex symbolic design. He
also provides a detailed account of D'Onston's whereabouts (he was
indeed a resident of the hospital throughout the period), and uses the
man's ideas from his later publications to explain why he did what he
did with each victim.</span></p><p><span>Essentially, female organs
were considered a source of power in an inherently progenerative
universe (both the symbol and the real thing), so D'Onston had sliced
these organs from two victims and taken samples for his own dark
purposes—possibly for making ceremonial candles. He was not attempting
to relive the crimes in some sick fantasy, as some have said, but
allegedly to offer the universe a way to channel its power through him.&nbsp;&nbsp; Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire <br></span></p><p><span>Why
select Whitechapel, one might yet ask? Apparently D'Onston had
contracted VD from a prostitute. Whether this prostitute-thick area was
coincidentally part of his plan or he chose it from some need for
revenge is anyone's guess. Certainly, the after-dark times he chose for
his attacks made it more likely that his victims would be from this
class of women.</span></p><p><span>Ironically, five years after the
murders, D'Onston converted to Christianity, and the person who was
instrumental in that process had once been a prostitute.</span></p><p><span>While
Edwards takes pot shots at other theories and Ripperologists, no doubt
his idea will get its share of pokes and jabs. Nevertheless, given the
measurements he makes (if they are indeed accurate) and the known facts
about his suspect, at the very least it's a theory to be given due
consideration.</span></p>    
				
			<!-- end body article -->
		
				
		<br/><table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%"><tr><td><a href="http://louis-j-sheehan.org/Blog/page1/2009/11/08/8cee894b-eb50-4c08-a1b7-3ebdf96a04f5.aspx">Comments (0)</a></td></tr></table>]]></description><link>http://louis-j-sheehan.org/Blog/page1/2009/11/08/8cee894b-eb50-4c08-a1b7-3ebdf96a04f5.aspx</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://louis-j-sheehan.org/Blog/page1/2009/11/08/8cee894b-eb50-4c08-a1b7-3ebdf96a04f5.aspx</guid></item><item><title>subject   5.sub.0003   Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire </title><pubDate>Sunday, 01 November 2009 03:26:10</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<h2>Dark Annie</h2>
 
			<!-- body article -->
          		 
				<p><span>Because
the people of Whitechapel firmly believed that the deaths of Martha
Tabram, Emma Smith and Polly Nichols were connected, there was a great
deal of pressure upon the police to bring the criminal(s) to justice.
Three theories were entertained: (1) a gang of thieves was responsible,
such as the men who robbed and assaulted Emma Smith,; (2) a gang
extorting money from prostitutes penalized the three women for failing
to pay; (3) a maniac was on the loose.</span></p><p><span>Considering
how poor the victims were, the first two theories were not very
plausible, so the final theory became popular. The East London Observer
commented on the Tabram and Nichols murders:</span></p><p><em><span>The
two murders which have so startled London within the last month are
singular for the reason that the victims have been of the poorest of
the poor, and no adequate motive in the shape of plunder can be traced.
The excess of effort that has been apparent in each murder suggests the
idea that both crimes are the work of a demented being, as the
extraordinary violence used is the peculiar feature in each instance.</span></em></p><p><span>A
request was made of the Home Secretary for a reward to be offered for
the discovery of the criminal. Henry Matthews, the Home Secretary, had
no idea at this point what he was dealing with, and declined to offer a
reward, laying responsibility at the feet of the Metropolitan Police.</span></p><p><span>Today,
even with all the techniques of modern forensic science and psychology,
a serial killer is a major challenge for a metropolitan police force.
Some serial killers will never be caught, regardless of the
sophistication and skill of the authorities in that jurisdiction.
London's Metropolitan Police, in Victorian times, was operating almost
completely in a knowledge vacuum, with no modern forensic tools
available to them. Fingerprinting, blood typing and other staples of
forensic technique were not yet developed for police use. Even
photography of victims was not a usual practice. There was no crime
laboratory at Scotland Yard until the 1930's.</span></p><p><span>Police
today have developed elaborate profiling techniques to identify serial
killers, and have amassed a database of information with which forensic
psychologists and psychiatrists can determine the kind of individual
perpetrating the crime. In 1888, the police were ignorant of sexual
psychopaths. They had seen nothing like the Ripper crimes in England in
their experience.</span></p><p><span>While police were searching for
the killer of Polly Nichols, a story surfaced about a bizarre character
named "Leather Apron." This man required prostitutes to pay him money
or he would beat them. The Star claimed the man was a Jewish slipper
maker of the following description:</span></p><p><em><span>From all
accounts he is five feet four or five inches in height and wears a
dark, close-fitting cap. He is thickset and has an unusually thick
neck. His hair is black, and closely clipped, his age being about 38 or
40. He has a small, black moustache. The distinguishing feature of his
costume is a leather apron, which he always wears...His expression is
sinister, and seems to be full of terror for the women who describe it.
His eyes are small and glittering. His lips are usually parted in a
grin which is not only not reassuring, but excessively repellent.</span></em></p><p><span>With all this publicity, including the fear of mob violence, "Leather Apron" went into hiding.</span></p><p><span><div class="image_fll"><img src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/trutv.com/graphics/photos/serial_killers/notorious/ripper/4a.jpg" alt="Annie Chapman"><div class="image_caption">Annie Chapman</div></div>Annie
Chapman, known to her friends as "Dark Annie," was a pathetic woman.
She was essentially homeless, living at common lodging houses when she
had the money for a night's lodging, otherwise roaming the streets in
search of clients to earn a little money for drink, shelter and food.</span></p><p><span>She
was 47 when she died, a homeless prostitute. But her life had been much
different in 1869, when she was married to John Chapman, a coachman. Of
the three children they had, one died of meningitis and another was
crippled. The stress of illness and the heavy drinking of both husband
and wife caused the breakup of their marriage. Things became much worse
for Annie when John died and she lost the small financial security his
allowance had provided her. The emotional shock of his death was just
as bad as the financial loss and she never recovered from either.</span></p><p><span>Suffering
from depression and alcoholism, she did crochet work and sold flowers.
Eventually she turned to prostitution, despite her plain features,
missing teeth, and plump figure. For the most part, she was very easy
going. However, a week before her death, she got into a fight with a
woman over a piece of soap and Annie was struck on the left eye and on
her chest.</span></p><p><span>On Friday, September 7, 1888, Annie was
told her friend that she was feeling sick. Unknown to her, she was
suffering from tuberculosis. "I must pull myself together and get some
money or I shall have no lodgings," she told her friend Amelia.</span></p><p><span><div class="image_center"><img src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/trutv.com/graphics/photos/serial_killers/notorious/ripper/4b.jpg" alt="Place where Annie Chapman was found."><div class="image_caption">Place where Annie Chapman was found.</div></div></span></p><p><span>Just
before two in the morning on Saturday, September 8, a slightly drunken
Annie was turned out of her lodging house to earn money for her bed.
Later that morning, she was found several hundred yards away in the
backyard of 29 Hanbury Street, Spitalfields.</span></p><p><span>29
Hanbury Street was just across from the Spitalfields market. Seventeen
people made the building their home, five of which had rooms
overlooking the site of the murder. Of those five or so with rooms
overlooking the crime scene, some had their windows open that night.</span></p><p><span><div class="image_center"><img src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/trutv.com/graphics/photos/serial_killers/notorious/ripper/4c.jpg" alt="Hanbury Street looking East, circa 1918-20"><div class="image_caption">Hanbury Street looking East, circa 1918-20</div></div>Spitalfields
Market opened at 5 a.m., so there were many other people gathered that
morning, people who had businesses in the building at 29 Hanbury,
preparing for the opening of the market. Residents were leaving for
work as early as 3:50 a.m. The streets around the market were filled
with the commercial vehicles delivering to the marketplace. John Davis,
an elderly carman who lived with his wife and three sons at 29 Hanbury,
found Annie's body just after 6 a.m. He noticed that her skirts had
been raised up to her pelvis. He went immediately to get help and
returned with two workmen. By the time a constable was called,
everybody in the house had been awakened.</span></p><p><span>Yet,
amazingly enough, even though the sun rose at 5:23 that morning, and so
much traffic was present at that early hour, no one heard any
suspicious disturbance or cry, nor was anyone seen with bloody clothing
or weapon. There was clean tap water in the backyard where Annie was
found, but the murderer did not use the water to wash the blood from
his hands or knife. Also amazing was the risk that the murderer took in
this daylight crime.</span></p><p><span><div class="image_fll"><img src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/trutv.com/graphics/photos/serial_killers/notorious/ripper/4d.jpg" alt="Dr. George Bagster Phillips"><div class="image_caption">Dr. George Bagster <br>Phillips</div></div>Dr. George Bagster Phillips, veteran police surgeon, was called to the spot and described what he saw for the inquest:</span></p><p><em><span>I
found the body of the deceased lying in the yard on her back...The left
arm was across the left breast, and the legs were drawn up, the feet
resting on the ground, and the knees turned outwards. 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 body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining
heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not
marked, but it was commencing. The throat was dissevered deeply. I
noticed that the incision of the skin was jagged, and reached right
round the neck.</span></em></p><p><span>Dr. Phillips estimated that
Annie Chapman had been dead approximately two hours. The absence of any
cry heard by the residents of 29 Hanbury could be explained by the
evidence that she was strangled into unconsciousness and immediately
thereafter had her throat slashed.</span></p><p><span><div class="image_center"><img src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/trutv.com/graphics/photos/serial_killers/notorious/ripper/4e.jpg" alt="Dr. Phillips examined the body of  Annie Chapman at the scene"><div class="image_caption">Dr. Phillips examined the body of Annie <br>Chapman at the scene</div></div>She
had been murdered where she was found. While there was no sign that
Annie had fought off her attacker, there was a strange occurrence that
Dr. Phillips noted near the feet of the corpse. Annie had apparently
kept in her pocket a small piece of cloth, a pocket comb and a
small-tooth comb, all of which had appeared to be purposely arranged in
some order.</span></p><p><span>An envelope containing two pills was
found near her head. On the back of the envelope were the words Sussex
Regiment. The letter M and lower down Sp were handwritten on the other
side. There was a postmark that said London, Aug. 23, 1888. Also, a
leather apron was found, along with some other trash around the yard.</span></p><p><span>The
testimony that Dr. Phillips gave at the inquest gave a more detailed
view of the ferocity of the murder. The murderer had grabbed Annie by
the chin and slashed her throat deeply from left to right, with the
possible failed attempt to decapitate her. This was the cause of death.
The abdominal mutilations, described in the September 29 edition of the
<em>Lancet</em>, were post mortem:</span></p><p><em><span>The abdomen had
been entirely laid open; that the intestines, severed from their
mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body, and placed by
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, avoiding the
rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the
cervix uteri. 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.</span></em></p><p><span>At the inquest, Phillips
said, "The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed
to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the
body." This police surgeon with 23 years of experience was very
surprised that the mutilations had been done so skillfully and in what
must have been a short period of time, saying that he could have not
done such work in less than fifteen minutes and more likely an hour.</span></p><p><span><div class="image_fll"><img src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/trutv.com/graphics/photos/serial_killers/notorious/ripper/4f.jpg" alt="Coroner Baxter"><div class="image_caption">Coroner Baxter</div></div>Coroner Wynne E. Baxter agreed in his summation:</span></p><p><em><span>The
body has not been dissected, but the injuries have been made by someone
who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. There are no
meaningless cuts (like in the Tabram murder). 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 recognized it when it was found. For instance, no
mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations. It
must have been someone accustomed to the post-mortem room.</span></em></p><p><span>Phillips
conjectured that the murder instrument was not a bayonet or the type of
knife used by leather workers, but rather a narrow, thin knife with a
blade between 6 and 8 inches long. The kind of knife used by
slaughtermen and surgeons for amputations could have been such an
instrument.</span></p><p><span>Abrasions on Annie's hands indicated
that her rings had been forced off her. Later, from conversations with
Annie's friends, police were able to determine that Annie wore cheap
brass rings, which may have been mistaken for gold.</span></p><p><span>Inspector
Abberline, who was in charge of the Polly Nichols murder, was
instructed to help with the Chapman murder, which was in Spitalfields,
a different police jurisdiction. However, the lead inspector was Joseph
Chandler of the Metropolitan Police's H Division. There seemed common
agreement among the inspectors that the same man who killed Polly
Nichols also killed Annie Chapman.</span></p><p><span>The Chapman
investigation was just as frustrating as the Nichols investigation. The
physical evidence - the leather apron, a nailbox and a piece of steel -
were owned by Mrs. Richardson, one of the residents, and her son. The
envelope with Sussex Regiment seal on it was widely sold to the public
at a local post office. Furthermore, a man at Annie's lodging house saw
her pick up the envelope from the kitchen floor to put her pills in
when her pillbox broke.</span></p><p><span>Extensive conversations with
the associates of Annie Chapman yielded neither good suspects nor any
reasonable motive for the crime. Nor was there any suspicious person
found escaping the scene of the crime.</span></p><p><span><div class="image_fll"><img src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/trutv.com/graphics/photos/serial_killers/notorious/ripper/4g.jpg" alt="John Richardson"><div class="image_caption">John Richardson</div></div>However,
the investigation was not entirely fruitless and three important
witnesses were found, one of which almost certainly caught a glimpse of
the murderer. The first witness, John Richardson, was Mrs. Amelia
Richardson's son. Between 4:45 and 4:50 on the morning of the murder,
he visited 29 Hanbury to check the locks on the cellar in which Mrs.
Richardson kept her tools and goods for her packing case enterprise.</span></p><p><span>He
opened the yard door and sat down on the step to cut a piece of leather
from his boot that had been hurting his foot. As it was beginning to
get light outside, he could see that the cellar locks had not been
tampered with while he sat fixing his boot. He could also see that at
that time, there was no body of Annie Chapman in the backyard. "I could
not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then,"
he said at the inquest.</span></p><p><span>Another witness, Albert
Cadosch, living next door to 29 Hanbury Street, testified that he heard
voices coming from the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street just after 5:20
a.m. The only word he overheard was <em>No</em>. A few minutes later, around 5:30 a.m., he heard the sound of something falling against the fence.</span></p><p><span><div class="image_center"><img src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/trutv.com/graphics/photos/serial_killers/notorious/ripper/4h.jpg" alt="Baxter (seated, center table) conducts the inquest"><div class="image_caption">Baxter (seated, center table) conducts <br>the inquest</div></div></span></p><p><span>The
most important witness was Mrs. Elizabeth Long, who was coming to the
Spitalfields market and passed through Hanbury Street when she heard
the Black Eagle Brewery clock strike 5:30. She saw a man and a woman
talking "close against the shutters of No. 29." Mrs. Long identified
Annie Chapman in the mortuary as the woman who had been facing her as
she passed down Hanbury Street. Unfortunately, the man Annie was
conversing with, who was almost certainly her killer, had his back to
Mrs. Long. She did her best to describe him in her testimony to Coroner
Wynne E. Baxter:</span></p><p><span><div class="image_fll"><img src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/trutv.com/graphics/photos/serial_killers/notorious/ripper/4i.jpg" alt="George Akin Lusk"><div class="image_caption">George Akin Lusk</div></div>Some
of the merchants in the area were quick to sense the growing
anti-Semitic fever and took action to contain it. They formed the Mile
End Vigilance Committee, which was primarily composed of Jewish
businessmen. George Lusk, a building contractor and vestryman in his
local church, was elected to head this committee of 16 prominent local
citizens. This committee, far from being the vigilante group that some
had claimed, was closer to an organized "neighborhood watch." Samuel
Montagu, who was the Jewish Member of Parliament for the Whitechapel
area, offered a reward for the capture of the Whitechapel killer, an
action sanctioned by the Mile End committee.</span></p><p><span>In a
week or so, the bawdy nightlife of Whitechapel surged back to its
normal pitch. There were just too many people whose daily subsistence
depended upon prostitution and other forms of evening entertainment to
let the pace lapse for long.</span></p><p><span>While Whitechapel was
unsatisfied with the lack of results of the police investigation, it
was hard to fault the police for the quantity of work that was
produced. On Tuesday, September 11, a few days after the death of Annie
Chapman, John Pizer, the famous "Leather Apron," was arrested.</span></p><p><span>Despite
attempts by his family to portray Pizer as a victim of malicious
rumors, there was sufficient evidence to show Pizer was an unpleasant
character with at least one documented case of stabbing, for which he
served six months at hard labor. The allegations of bullying and
extorting money from prostitutes were never proven. The East London
Observer described in a not altogether unbiased view, Pizer's testimony
to Coroner Baxter:</span></p><p><em><span>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 work a dark overcoat, brown
trousers, and a brown and very much battered hat, and appeared somewhat
splay-footed.</span></em></p><p><span>When Baxter 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.</span></p><p><span>"I was the subject of a false suspicion," he said emphatically.</span></p><p><span>"It was not the best advice that could be given to you," Baxter returned.</span></p><p><span>Pizer shot back immediately. "I will tell you why. I should have been torn to pieces!"</span></p><p><span>The
fact that Pizer was an unpleasant character did not make him the
Whitechapel murderer. First of all, he had alibis for the times at
which Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman were murdered. When Polly was
killed, Pizer was at a lodging house, which was corroborated by the
proprietor. When Annie was killed, he was afraid to be seen and&nbsp; Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire&nbsp; was
staying with relatives, a story which was corroborated by several
people. Secondly, he lacked the skill to carve up Annie Chapman and
remove her uterus.&nbsp;&nbsp; Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire <br></span></p><p><span>Pizer was released, but a number
of others were picked up and questioned. Some were just eccentric and
drunken characters that shot off their mouths about the murders; others
were insane. Few were worthy of prolonged investigation, either because
they lacked the medical skills or because they had alibis for the time
the women were murdered. Often the alibis consisted of confinement in
asylums or jails.</span></p><p><span>Insanity and medical
qualifications became the key factors in sorting out suspects. Another
factor was foreign origin, recalling Mrs. Long's testimony in the Annie
Chapman murder. The focus on medical knowledge led the police well
beyond the reaches of Whitechapel, into the middle and upper classes of
London, as the eccentric and violent behavior of some surgeons and
other physicians came into question.</span></p><br/><table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%"><tr><td><a href="http://louis-j-sheehan.org/Blog/page1/2009/11/01/93fc7302-d4c0-4f1d-8702-c45f572e6538.aspx">Comments (0)</a></td></tr></table>]]></description><link>http://louis-j-sheehan.org/Blog/page1/2009/11/01/93fc7302-d4c0-4f1d-8702-c45f572e6538.aspx</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://louis-j-sheehan.org/Blog/page1/2009/11/01/93fc7302-d4c0-4f1d-8702-c45f572e6538.aspx</guid></item></channel></rss>