Whodunnit? The Crimes of Jack the Ripper

WARNING: This article contains photographs and diagrams of a graphic and disturbing nature.

Footfalls on an empty street. Gas streetlamps with their open flames fill the air with dim, flickering yellow light. Thick, white, smokey fog. The distant clatter of hooves and cartwheels. A bullseye lantern shining weakly through the misty gloom of a poorly-lit public thoroughfare. Suddenly, a pause, followed minutes later, by the loud, desperate ‘chreeep!’ of a police-whistle! The alarm has been sounded! From all quarters, officers run to the scene of a ghastly crime, to witness the work of a madman, and so begins one of the most famous cases in criminal history.

The year is 1888. Queen Victoria is on the throne. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is making a name for himself with a little-known private detective named Sherlock Holmes; in the United States, the Great Blizzard of ’88 paralyizes the eastern seaboard under several feet of ice and snow. And in the district of Whitechapel in the slums of London, a man known as Jack the Ripper starts one of the most famous series of crimes ever known to mankind…

Who Was ‘Jack the Ripper’?

To begin at the beginning, the Ripper’s identity was never firmly established. For over 120 years, the name, likeness, the mindset and the motivations of the Ripper, have remained a complete mystery to everyone but him. But suffice to say that Jack the Ripper has remained one of the most, if not the most famous serial-killer in recorded history. But who was he, and what did he do that makes him so famous? Why is it that there are documentaries and films and books and tours of London all centered around a guy who we know Jack-all about? Surely, to have lasted over a century at the top-spot on the Top 10 Most Famous Murderers List, he must’ve done something real fancy, like sliced open a screaming baby and cooked spaghetti and meatballs with its innards, right? And then stuffed the carcass and turned it into a pie! Yeah that’s it…Right?

No.

Officially, Jack the Ripper killed only five victims, and none of them were babies. But then again, why? There have been murderers in history who butchered, tortured and killed dozens, even hundreds of victims, and yet their names are lost to history. And yet a Victorian-era nobody who no living person has seen since 1888, remains king of killers. Why?

It is because the Ripper represented the ultimate ‘whodunnit?’ mystery. No witnesses, no clues, no convictions…nothing. It is because, despite the frantic efforts of everyone from Queen Victoria (literally) down to ordinary London citizens, he managed to escape capture and was never brought to justice for crimes that would make Ed Gein look like a chef chopping up veggies for stew. It is because, for four months in 1888, Jack the Ripper terrorised the citizens of London with a series of crimes so gruesome and grisly, that he remains famous today as one of the greatest killers in history.

Whitechapel, Tower Hamlets, London

The Ripper’s hunting-ground was a seedy, dangerous, impoverished, working-class neighbourhood in London’s East End, called Whitechapel, in the borough known as Tower Hamlets (due to its close proximity to the Tower of London). These days, Whitechapel is still a working-class neighbourhood with many warehouses and industry-buildings there, but it is a shadow of its former self, for the Whitechapel of 1888 was something akin to Hell on Earth.

The East End of London was always the industrial end of town. It was here that there were docks, slaughterhouses, brothels, opium dens, drinking dens, public houses, doss-houses (cheap boarding-houses), tanneries, paint-manufacturies, warehouses and other establishments and industires bound to make the air stink and the people poor. The Industrial Revolution had brought thousands of people to London and many of the poorest thousands ended up crammed into the East End. People in Whitechapel were especially poor, living in overcrowded, filthy tenements, often cramming as many as nine people into each room. And this was just for those who could find a cheap room. For those with no money at all, they literally ended up on the streets, often entire families were shoved out the door with the clothes on their backs. If they were lucky, they ended up in workhouses. Life was cheap, wages low, and unemployment rampant. Murder was not an everyday occurence in Whitechapel, but it wasn’t something that happened once in a blue moon, either. The residents of the neighbourhood were used to finding corpses of people who had been killed by one way or another. But the Ripper blew that nonchalance and indifference away like a fan against a candle.

When the Ripper murders started, the already longsuffering people of Whitechapel, troubled by unemployment, crime, poverty, starvation and widespread alcoholism, had yet one more life-shattering thing to worry about, thrown into the storm of their unhappy existences: The crimes of a homocidal maniac.

Whitechapel was a poor suburb. Streets varied from wide thoroughfares to narrow alleyways, large, open crossroads and obscure courtyards and squares. At night, the streets were poorly lit by dim, gas-fired lamps. The darkness gave the Ripper the perfect setting to carry out his grisly crimes, away from the prying eyes of the public. It’s probably little wonder that people started feeling as scared as they did.

The Victims and the Crimes

All streets and addresses mentioned in this part of the article are correct to 1888. The current names of any streets renamed since 1888 will be provided in brackets.

The unknown serial-killer known as Jack the Ripper officially killed only five victims, although some people have theorised that he may have killed up to a dozen people. His victims were East End prostitutes in their forties; women who were destitute, impoverished, almost certainly homeless and who had to sell themselves to make a scraping of a living. His five, official victims were, in order of death:

Mary-Ann Nichols (‘Polly’ Nichols).
Annie Chapman.
Elizabeth Stride (‘Long Liz’).
Catherine Eddowes.
Mary-Jane Kelly.

Friday, 31st August, 1888

Two men, Charles Cross and Robert Paul, are on their way to work. Cross finds the body of Polly Nichols outside the locked gates to a slaughterhouse in Buck’s Row (Durward St), Whitechapel. The time is 3:40am. Cross calls to Paul and together, they casually examine the body. Nichols’ skirts had been pulled up, and the two men pull them down again to give her some decency. Mr. Paul examines the body a bit closer and checks for a pulse. He thinks he feels a weak heartbeat. The two men leave the body, determined to notify the first policeman that they find.

Shortly after the men leave, PC John Neil, out on his beat, comes through Bucks Row. He spots the body by the light of his lantern and raises the alarm with his police-whistle. He is soon joined by PC John Thain, and shortly after, by PC Jonas Mizen, who had already been alerted to the presence of the body after meeting Cross and Paul on their way to work. A doctor is summoned to examine the body and remove it from the scene of the crime.

While Neil and Mizen stay with the body, Thain leaves to find the nearest physician, Dr. Rees Ralph Llewellyn who lives nearby. Llewellyn examines the body and declares death to have happened only a few minutes ago.

In the nearest mortuary, an inventory of Nichols’s posessions is taken by Insp. John Spratling, and a postmortem examination is performed on Nichols by Dr. Llewellyn. He determines that…:

    “Five teeth were missing, and there was a slight laceration of the tongue. There was a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw on the right side of the face. That might have been caused by a blow from a fist or pressure from a thumb. There was a circular bruise on the left side of the face which also might have been inflicted by the pressure of the fingers. On the left side of the neck, about 1 in. below the jaw, there was an incision about 4 in. in length, and ran from a point immediately below the ear. On the same side, but an inch below, and commencing about 1 in. in front of it, was a circular incision, which terminated at a point about 3 in. below the right jaw. That incision completely severed all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision was about 8 in. in length. the cuts must have been caused by a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence. No blood was found on the breast, either of the body or the clothes. There were no injuries about the body until just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. The wound was a very deep one, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. There were three or four similar cuts running downwards, on the right side, all of which had been caused by a knife which had been used violently and downwards. the injuries were form left to right and might have been done by a left handed person. All the injuries had been caused by the same instrument.”

    The Times newspaper


While at the mortuary, this photograph was taken of Nichols’s head

Mary-Ann ‘Polly’ Nichols was buried on Thursday, 6th of September, 1888.


Polly Nichols’s death certificate

Saturday, 8th September, 1888

Just two days after the Ripper’s first victim was laid to rest at the age of 43, his next victim was found brutally murdered. Her name was Annie Chapman, called ‘Dark Annie’ by some of her friends. Her body was found in the back yard of a common lodging-house at 29 Hanbury Street, Whitechapel, by a carman called John Davis, who lived on the third floor of No. 29, with his family.

At 5:30am, on the morning of the 8th of September, Albert Cadosh, a carpenter who lived next door at No. 27, came outside into the neighbouring back yard, which was barely any larger than the one next door, to relieve himself and answer a call of nature. While so-doing, he heard noises next door at No. 29. He heard one word: “No!”, and then the sound of something hitting the fence between the two houses, said fence being only five feet tall. Cadosh thought nothing of it, hitched up his pants and sauntered back inside. This was the only time when someone might possibly have spotted the Ripper. All Cadosh had to do was walk over to the fence and look over the top, and he would’ve seen Jack the Ripper. Shortly before six in the morning, Davis came into the back yard of his tenement to find the body of Annie Chapman. Her injuries were described as follows, by Dr. George B. Phillips:

    “The left arm was placed across the left breast. 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. The tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The tongue was evidently much swollen. The front teeth were perfect as far as the first molar, top and bottom and very fine teeth they were. The body was terribly mutilated…the stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but was evidently commencing. He noticed that the throat was dissevered deeply.; that the incision through the skin were jagged and reached right round the neck…On the wooden paling between the yard in question and the next, smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased lay, were to be seen. These were about 14 inches from the ground, and immediately above the part where the blood from the neck lay”

After Davis discovered the body, he left some men to guard it, before running to the nearest police-station in Commercial Street to alert the authorities. At approximately 6:30am, Dr. George Bagster Phillips arrived, to examine the body.

Phillips believed that the Ripper may have some knowledge of human anatomy. The knife used was long and thin, possibly a surgical knife. Phillips estimated that the time taken to kill and butcher the victim could have taken anywhere from fifteen minutes to nearly an hour, working in the dark, pitch-black, with no light, and without making a sound.

Chapman’s body was taken to the mortuary and a postmorten examination was carried out. A photograph of her face was also taken at this point:

Chapman’s body was laid to rest on Friday, the 14th of September, 1888.

Sunday, 30th September, 1888

It’s 1:00am in the morning. Jewellery-salesman Louis Diemschutz is driving along Berner Street, heading towards The International Workers’ Educational Club, of which he is a member. At the end of Berner Street, he turns into a space called Dutfield’s Yard. At the entrance, his horse is spooked and refuses to move forward. Diemschutz dismounts from his cart and heads into the pitch black square by himself, holding his whip out in front of him to feel the way. He finds the body of Elizabeth Stride, the Ripper’s third victim. At first, he thinks that Stride is drunk or asleep. He strikes a match to examine the body…and then runs into his clubhouse for help.

Men return with lanterns for better illumination and Diemschutz takes them to the body. Stride’s body is still warm, indicating that the woman was killed only a few minutes ago. It’s widely believed that the Ripper was still in the yard when Diemschutz entered it with his horse and cart, startling the Ripper and causing him to hide, leaving him unable to mutilate the body. When the corpse is discovered, he flees westwards…

Dr. Fredrick Blackwell of 100, Commercial Road, is summoned to examine the body and pronounces death at the scene. The constable on the beat is summoned and police backup soon arrives. The body is taken to the mortuary and examined. The injuries, as recorded by Dr. G.B. Phillips, who conducted the last few postmortem examinations reads as follows:

    “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.

    At three o’clock p.m. on Monday at St. George’s Mortuary, Dr. Blackwell and I made a post mortem examination. Rigor mortis was still thoroughly marked. There was mud on the left side of the face and it was matted in the head. The Body was fairly nourished. Over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collarbone and in front of the chest there was a bluish discoloration, which I have watched and have seen on two occasions since.

    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 hemorrhage was caused through the partial severance of the left carotid artery.

    Decomposition had commenced in the skin. Dark brown spots were on the anterior surface of the left chin. There was a deformity in the bones of the right leg, which was not straight, but bowed forwards. There was no recent external injury save to the neck. The body being washed more thoroughly I could see some healing sores. The lobe of the left ear was torn as if from the removal or wearing through of an earring, but it was thoroughly healed. On removing the scalp there was no sign of extravasation of blood.

    The heart was small, the left ventricle firmly contracted, and the right slightly so. There was no clot in the pulmonary artery, but the right ventricle was full of dark clot. The left was firmly contracted as to be absolutely empty. The stomach was large and the mucous membrane only congested. It contained partly digested food, apparently consisting of cheese, potato, and farinaceous powder. All the teeth on the lower left jaw were absent.”


The death certificate of Elizabeth Stride

The night of the 30th of September, 1888, was going to be a memorable one. Not only was the Ripper nearly caught in the act, but because this was the only time that he killed two people in one night.

The Ripper’s fourth victim, and second on the night of the ‘Double Event’, was Catherine Eddowes.

While everyone’s attention was drawn to the death of Elizabeth Stride, the Ripper headed west, until he reached a small square called Mitre Square, in the City of London. Here, he kills Catherine Eddowes, whose body is discovered at 1:45am by PC Edward Watkins.

The interesting thing about Eddowes’s death is that she might very well not have been killed at all that night, if not for the actions of the police, who released her from a holding-cell at the Bishopsgate Police Station.

At 8:30 on the night of the 29th, Eddowes was arrested by the police for drunk and disorderly conduct. She was taken to the nearest police station at Bishopsgate and was locked up there from 8:50pm until 1:00am the next day. After sleeping off her drunkeness, Eddowes is released from the station and sent off on her way.

Sometime before 1:45, she meets the Ripper. He takes her to Mitre Square, where he kills her, rips her apart and leaves the body to be found by the police. Despite the fact that it was an enclosed square, nobody heard a thing. The people living in the houses around the square heard nothing. A poiceman and his family living in a house just a few yards away, heard nothing. Not even PC Watkins, whose beat took him right through the square, heard anything. The Ripper must have worked very fast, because Watkins passed through the square every fifteen minutes. At 1:30am, Watkins entered Mitre Square to find nothing out of the ordinary. When he returned at 1:45, he found a disemboweled corpse in the corner of the yard.

Eddowes’s body had been brutally butchered, almost hacked to pieces. These photos show the sheer extent of the Ripper’s damage:


Eddowes’s body, before she was…ehm…reassembled


Her body, sewn up, upon the completion of the postmortem examination

Dr. Fredrick Gordon Brown was called to the scene of the Eddowes murder. His report is shown below. Its sheer length is a testament to the Ripper’s savagery:

    “The body was on its back, the head turned to left shoulder. The arms by the side of the body as if they had fallen there. Both palms upwards, the fingers slightly bent. The left leg extended in a line with the body. The abdomen was exposed. Right leg bent at the thigh and knee. The throat cut across.

    The intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder — they were smeared over with some feculent matter. 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.

    There was a quantity of clotted blood on the pavement on the left side of the neck round the shoulder and upper part of arm, and fluid blood-coloured serum which had flowed under the neck to the right shoulder, the pavement sloping in that direction.

    Body was quite warm. No death stiffening had taken place. She must have been dead most likely within the half hour. We looked for superficial bruises and saw none. No blood on the skin of the abdomen or secretion of any kind on the thighs. No spurting of blood on the bricks or pavement around. No marks of blood below the middle of the body. Several buttons were found in the clotted blood after the body was removed. There was no blood on the front of the clothes. There were no traces of recent connexion.

    When the body arrived at Golden Lane, some of the blood was dispersed through the removal of the body to the mortuary. The clothes were taken off carefully from the body. A piece of deceased’s ear dropped from the clothing. I made a post mortem examination at half past two on Sunday afternoon. Rigor mortis was well marked; body not quite cold. Green discoloration over the abdomen.

    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. A few small bruises on right shin of older date. The hands and arms were bronzed. No bruises on the scalp, the back of the body, or the elbows.

    The face was very much mutilated. There was a cut about a quarter of an inch through the lower left eyelid, dividing the structures completely through. 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, extending from the left border of the nasal bone down near the angle of the jaw on the right side of the cheek. This cut went into the bone and divided all the structures of the cheek except the mucous membrane of the mouth.

    The tip of the nose was quite detached by an oblique cut from the bottom of the nasal bone to where the wings of the nose join on to the face. A cut from this divided the upper lip and extended through the substance of the gum over the right upper lateral incisor tooth. About half an inch from the top of the nose was another oblique cut. There was a cut on the right angle of the mouth as if the cut of a point of a knife. The cut extended an inch and a half, parallel with the lower lip.

    There was on each side of cheek a cut which peeled up the skin, forming a triangular flap about an inch and a half. On the left cheek there were two abrasions of the epithelium under the left ear. The throat was cut across to the extent of about six or seven inches. A superficial cut commenced about an inch and a half below the lobe below, and about two and a half inches behind the left ear, and extended across the throat to about three inches below the lobe of the right ear.

    The big muscle across the throat was divided through on the left side. The large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed. The larynx was severed below the vocal chord. All the deep structures were severed to the bone, the knife marking intervertebral cartilages. The sheath of the vessels on the right side was just opened.

    The carotid artery had a fine hole opening, the internal jugular vein was opened about an inch and a half — not divided. The blood vessels contained clot. All these injuries were performed by a sharp instrument like a knife, and pointed. The cause of death was haemorrhage from the left common carotid artery. The death was immediate and the mutilations were inflicted after death.

    We examined the abdomen. The front walls were laid open from the breast bones to the pubes. The cut commenced opposite the enciform cartilage. The incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the enciform cartilage. The knife must have cut obliquely at the expense of that cartilage. Behind this, the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument. Below this was another incision into the liver of about two and a half inches, and below this the left lobe of the liver was slit through by a vertical cut. Two cuts were shewn by a jagging of the skin on the left side.

    The abdominal walls were divided in the middle line to within a quarter of an inch of the navel. The cut then took a horizontal course for two inches and a half towards the right side. It then divided round the navel on the left side, and made a parallel incision to the former horizontal incision, leaving the navel on a tongue of skin. Attached to the navel was two and a half inches of the lower part of the rectus muscle on the left side of the abdomen. The incision then took an oblique direction to the right and was shelving. The incision went down the right side of the vagina and rectum for half an inch behind the rectum.

    There was a stab of about an inch on the left groin. This was done by a pointed instrument. Below this was a cut of three inches going through all tissues making a wound of the peritoneum about the same extent.

    An inch below the crease of the thigh was a cut extending from the anterior spine of the ilium obliquely down the inner side of the left thigh and separating the left labium, forming a flap of skin up to the groin. The left rectus muscle was not detached. There was a flap of skin formed by the right thigh, attaching the right labium, and extending up to the spine of the ilium. The muscles on the right side inserted into the frontal ligaments were cut through.

    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.

    I removed the content of the stomach and placed it in a jar for further examination. There seemed very little in it in the way of food or fluid, but from the cut end partly digested farinaceous food escaped. The intestines had been detached to a large extent from the mesentery. About two feet of the colon was cut away. The sigmoid flexure was invaginated into the rectum very tightly.

    Right kidney was pale, bloodless with slight congestion of the base of the pyramids.

    There was a cut from the upper part of the slit on the under surface of the liver to the left side, and another cut at right angles to this, which were about an inch and a half deep and two and a half inches long. Liver itself was healthy.

    The gall bladder contained bile. The pancreas was cut, but not through, on the left side of the spinal column. Three and a half inches of the lower border of the spleen by half an inch was attached only to the peritoneum. The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed. The left renal artery was cut through. I would say that someone who knew the position of the kidney must have done it.

    The lining membrane over the uterus was cut through. The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump of three quarters of an inch. The rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments. The vagina and cervix of the womb was uninjured. The bladder was healthy and uninjured, and contained three or four ounces of water. There was a tongue-like cut through the anterior wall of the abdominal aorta. The other organs were healthy. There were no indications of connexion.

    I believe the wound in the throat was first inflicted. I believe she must have been lying on the ground. The wounds on the face and abdomen prove that they were inflicted by a sharp, pointed knife, and that in the abdomen by one six inches or longer.

    I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed. The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose. I think the perpetrator of this act had sufficient time, or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids. It would take at least five minutes. I cannot assign any reason for the parts being taken away. I feel sure that there was no struggle, and believe it was the act of one person.

    The throat had been so instantly severed that no noise could have been emitted. I should not expect much blood to have been found on the person who had inflicted these wounds. The wounds could not have been self-inflicted.”

The Double Event of the 30th of September sent Victorian London into Red Alert. Everyone was scared, even the people who didn’t live in the East End! Queen Victoria herself stated that:

“This new and most ghastly murder shows the absolute necessity for some very decided action. All these courts must be lit, and our detectives improved. They are not what they should be”

The police were frantic now. They followed up each and every single lead to the best of their ability. They did doorknocks, speaking to every single person (almost literally) in the East End. In some cases, every single house in a street was doorknocked by police, and officers interviewed every single person they could find, for information about Jack the Ripper.

For the whole of October, nothing happened, although exhaustive public and police-efforts to track down the Ripper continued. Vigilante organisations were set up, rewards were offered and every single suspect was checked, shadowed, interviewed, arrested, released, checked, checked and rechecked. Every single clue and lead, no matter how stupid or irrelevant, was followed as keenly as if the murder-weapon had just been laid on the evidence-table.

By the end of October, people started relaxing. The killer had gone underground. He was in hiding. He was dead. He had fled the country. He had done something that meant he wouldn’t kill again.

Or so they thought.

Friday, 9th November, 1888

It was the great misfortune of Mr. Thomas Bowyer, on the 9th of November, the Lord Mayor’s Day, to go around collecting rent. He headed into a small square known as Miller’s Court where he intended to call on Mary Jane Kelly. Finding the door locked and receiving no answer to his knocks, Mr. Bowyer went around the side of the building to peep into the room through a broken window. Pushing aside the curtains to reach for the door-handle of the door (the room was so small that it was perfectly possible to do this), Bowyer caught the remains of Mary Kelly lying on the bed in the corner of the room. He was so horrified at what he saw, that he ran to find the police as soon as he could.

The last murder of Jack the Ripper is unique in many ways. To begin with, Kelly was a lot younger than the other victims. Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes were all in their forties. Kelly was just twenty-five. Kelly was the only victim to have a permanent address (13 Miller’s Court, Whitechapel). She was the only victim killed indoors, and her body was the most mutilated of them all. Kelly’s body was the only one of the Ripper’s victims to be photographed as she was found, where she was found.

When the police arrived, they opened the door and entered the room. What greeted them was a scene of absolute carnage. Mary Kelly had literally been ripped to pieces. Chunks of her body lay all over the place and blood was everywhere. The Ripper had really gone to work on her, slicing and cutting and gouging away so much flesh that her skull was exposed. Her face was so badly mutilated that it wasn’t even recognisable. Her entire body had been sliced open like a French roll and her innards pulled out and her organs were heaped on the bedside table. The official report stated that the heart was ‘absent’. A fire had obviously burned in the room overnight, and it was one of such intensity that the tea-kettle hanging over the hearth was partially melted from the heat.


Mary Jane Kelly’s body, photographed as found by police

Kelly’s death and subsequent butchery sent shockwaves of an unprecedented scale through London. Sir Charles Warren, commissioner for the Metropolitan Police (Scotland Yard), resigned in disgrace on the same day. On the 10th of November, the Home Office issued an official Royal Pardon from Queen Victoria herself, for “anyone but the killer” who might come forth with information leading to the Ripper’s apprehension.


Death cetificate of Mary Jane Kelly (written here as Marie Jeanette Kelly)

The postmortem report by Dr. Thomas Bond, a police surgeon, on the condition of Mary Jane Kelly’s body, reads as follows:

    “The body was lying naked in the middle of the bed, the shoulders flat but the axis of the body inclined to the left side of the bed. The head was turned on the left cheek. The left arm was close to the body with the forearm flexed at a right angle and lying across the abdomen. The right arm was slightly abducted from the body and rested on the mattress. The elbow was bent, the forearm supine with the fingers clenched. The legs were wide apart, the left thigh at right angles to the trunk and the right forming an obtuse angle with the pubes.

    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 bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, and on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about two feet square. The wall by the right side of the bed and in a line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in a number of separate splashes. 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 skin cuts in the front of the neck showed distinct ecchymosis. The air passage was cut at the lower part of the larynx through the cricoid cartilage. Both breasts were more or less removed by circular incisions, the muscle down to the ribs being attached to the breasts. The intercostals between the fourth, fifth, and sixth ribs were cut through and the contents of the thorax visible through the openings.

    The skin and tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch to the pubes were removed in three large flaps. The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation, and part of the right buttock. 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.

    On opening the thorax it was found that the right lung was minimally adherent by old firm adhesions. The lower part of the lung was broken and torn away. The left lung was intact. It was adherent at the apex and there were a few adhesions over the side. In the substances of the lung there were several nodules of consolidation. The pericardium was open below and the heart absent. In the abdominal cavity there was some partly digested food of fish and potatoes, and similar food was found in the remains of the stomach attached to the intestines.”

Letters from the Ripper?

One of the most famous elements of the Jack the Ripper case was the number of letters sent to police-officials and newspaper-editors throughout the duration of the crimes. Many were considered to be hoaxes, but a handful were believed to be genuine. Here they are, for you to read:


Text:

    25th Sept, 1888

    “Dear Boss,

    I keep hearing the police have caught me, but they won’t fix me just yet. I have laughed when they look so clever and talk about being on the right track. That joke about leather apron gave me real fits. I am down on whores and won’t quit ripping them till I do get buckled. Grand work the last job was. I gave the lady no time to squeal. How can they catch me now. I love my work and want to start again. You will soon hear of me with my funny little games. I saved some of the proper red stuff in a ginger beer bottle over the last job to write with, but it went thick like glue and I can’t use it. Red ink is fit enough, I hope. Haha! The next job I do, I shall clip the lady’s ears off and send to the…

    …police officers just for jolly; wouldn’t you? Keep this letter back ’till I do a bit more work. Then give it out straight. My knife’s so nice and sharp, I want to get to work right away, if I get a chance.

    Good Luck,

    Yours Truly,

    Jack the Ripper

    Don’t mind me giving the trade name.

    Wasn’t good enough to post this before I got all the red ink off my hands, curse it. No luck yet. They say I’m a doctor now.Ha ha

This card was sent after the “Double Event” of September 30th. It reads:

    “I was not codding dear old Boss when I gave you the tip, you’ll hear about Saucy Jacky’s work tomorrow double event this time number one squealed a bit couldn’t finish straight off. ha not the time to get ears for police. thanks for keeping last letter back till I got to work again.

    Jack the Ripper”

    From hell.
    Mr Lusk,
    Sor
    I send you half the Kidne I took from one woman and prasarved it for you tother piece I fried and ate it was very nise. I may send you the bloody knif that took it out if you only wate a whil longer

    signed
    Catch me when you can Mishter Lusk

This last communication did indeed contain half a human kidney which was widely believed to have come from Catherine Eddowes, however, medical science at the time was not able to say this definitely.

Catching the Ripper

Trying to catch Jack the Ripper was like trying to bail out a sinking ship with a sieve. The police simply couldn’t do it, no matter how hard they tried. Even today, capturing serial-killers takes months, years, in some cases, even decades of investigation. These days we think it’s easy, it’s just a matter of blood, DNA, fingerprints and skin-flakes. However, we have to remember that in 1888, none of these things were available to the police of the era. The Scotland Yard of the 1880s, although advanced for the period, had only rudimentary scientific investigative techniques. Fingerprinting had existed as a form of identification before then, but it would not be used in criminal investigations until the turn of the century. DNA and blood analysis did not exist and criminal profiling and modern criminal psychology did not exist.

At the time, a frustrated young doctor named Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was writing of a detective named Sherlock Holmes. Holmes solved crimes through delicate, careful observation and meticulous examination of EVERYTHING in a crime-scene, no matter how trivial it was. If the police had followed Holmes’s lead of applying observation, deduction, analysis and inference to their investigations, maybe they would have gotten somewhere, but in 1888, when Holmes’s reputation was still being established, no right-minded policeman was going to follow the investigative techniques of a fictional detective!

Victorian-era CSI and investigating crimes in general, was thorough, but generally inconclusive. It was customary to try and clean up crime-scenes as quickly as possible, not to photograph it, measure it or collect evidence. This is one of the things that made the death of Mary Kelly so unique. She was the only Ripper victim who was photographed EXACTLY as she was found. Officers did not have a rogue’s gallery of known criminals to pour through. If they wanted information, they had to go out and find it. They had to hammer on doors and take down witness statments (which were rarely helpful) and they had to be incredibly alert. In most cases, the only way to apprehend a criminal was to literally catch him in the act. Rewards were sometimes placed in newspapers for information leading to the recovery of stolen goods, or information leading to the arrest of a wanted criminal.

Clues in the Ripper case were few and far between. The only clue that the Ripper ever really left, was a scrap of cloth, ripped from one of his victim’s aprons, which he used to clean his knife. Above the spot where the scrap of apron was found, was a piece of grafitti, which read:

    “The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing”

Whether it was ever written by the Ripper, or whether the presence of this grafitti even means anything, is uncertain. It was never photographed and exists now, only in the handwritten copies of the police-officers who saw fit to write it down.

The Ripper’s success in eluding the police, despite the very energetic efforts of two police-forces, thousands of men and investigation of everything down to the tiniest and most absurd detail, makes Jack the Ripper one of the most successful serial killers in history. Ripper suspects number in their dozens, ranging from relative nobodies, to His Royal Highness, Prince Albert Victor, grandson of Queen Victoria. Theories have floated around for over a hundred years, as to who the killer is. It was generally believed by the police at the time, that one Aaron Kosminski was the killer, but he was never brought to trial because as a Jew, fellow Jews refused to testify against him. He was eventually confined to a lunatic asylum, where he eventually died. Did authorities capture Jack the Ripper in Kosminski? Or did the real Rpper escape justice? Nobody will ever know.

 

The Feudal System in Medieval Europe

From about the year 1000 until the end of the 1500s, the people of Europe lived, worked and died by a social and governmental system known as ‘Feudalism’. Most people have a weak idea of what feudalism is, but we often forget about it when we watch movies, which portray the Medieval period as romantic, exotic, exciting and amazing. In truth, there was every little romance about living in the Medieval period and living by the Feudal System. It was hard work, sacrifice, slavery and most likely an early grave for anywhere from 70-90% of the population of Europe.

What was Feudalism?

Feudalism in its simplest form was a pyramid of power. At the very top was the king. Below him were barons (noblemen), below them were knights, below them were the peasantry. The peasantry was the largest chunk of the pyramid, right at the bottom, and it could make up to three quarters to nine tenths of the entire population. Amongst the peasantry, the classes were even further subdivided into Freemen, Villeins, Cottagers and Slaves.

The king was at the very top. He ran the country, he decided who got what, he settled disputes, he allocated land and he reigned supreme over his subjects. In theory, the entire country belonged to the king and people couldn’t live there without his personal say-so. Of course, in particularly large countries, it was impossible for the king to see what was going on around his country all at once. To help him do this, he appointed barons or noblemen to be his eyes and ears. The idea was that the king gave a nobleman, a person who had proved himself worthy, a plot of land. In return for the land, the nobleman was expected to govern his part of the kingdom and was expected to pay taxes and provide the king with knights in the event of a military conflict. The land which noblemen could have could be immense, and to protect their royal presents, many noblemen built castles (for which they needed royal permission and funds). Noblemen could set their own laws and taxes within the lands which they controlled.

Below the king and his barons were the knights. A knight was an elite soldier, trained, almost since birth, to kick medieval butt. You can find out more about knights here. The local lord was expected to have a group of knights ready and waiting for the king, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year, in case of a war. Most knights were rather run-of-the-mill and ordinary. However, if you were really brave and ballsy, you could actually make a pretty good living as a knight, and some stood a chance of becoming wealthy and powerful noblemen themselves.

Below the knights were the common masses, subdivided, as I said, into Freemen, Villeins, Cottagers and Slaves.

The Peasantry

Under the Feudal System, the peasantry was the lowest class of people. They were more-or-less disposable slave-labour. With so many peasants, it’s probably not surprising that there were various classes of peasantry, free and unfree peasantry. Free peasants being called Freemen and unfree peasants being called serfs, the latter bieng further subdivided into various groups.

Freemen, as the name implies…were free. Free to do more or less as they wished. They were tenant-farmers, who rented land from the local lord and who could grow their own crops and do as they pleased. They paid lower taxes than most other peasants, so if they played their cards right, they could make a fairly decent living for themselves. However, freemen in Medieval society were generally few and far between.

Next came Villeins. Villeins were the biggest chunk of the peasant workforce. Despite the fact that life was hard for them, they did manage to make a living and they did have various rights and rules which governed their lives, much like the more lucky freemen above them. Unfortunately, what rights and priveliges they had couldn’t always fill their bellies and they were expected to work hard on the land to get their food. If food was scarce, they might turn to crime. ‘Villein’ is the medival word which we get the modern ‘Villain’ from. What rights they did have must’ve seemed like royal luxuries to the people below them. Villeins were able to own houses, or at least rent them, they might, or might not be allowed their own land. One unpleasant condition (amongst several) of their existence was that they could not leave the land of their lord without permission. The only other way to leave your lord’s land and servitude was to marry a freeman, who had his own house and grounds. One, less than legal way to escape servitude was to run away and live in town for a long enough period that you could earn your freedom. In order to earn this freedom, you had to live in town for at least a year, though. Considering all the things that happened in towns, and the possible lack of employment, surviving your first year there could be very tough.

Next on the social ladder was the Cottager. As the name suggests, a cottager lived in…a cottage. Unlike Freemen or Villeins, cottagers had no land to call their own. Freemen had their own fields or land around their homes. Villeins might be given a neat, ‘house-and-land’ package from their landlords, but cottagers got nothing. They were expected to work the lord’s fields, for the lord, every single day. In return for this servitude, they were given small huts or shacks (‘cottages’) and a small percentage of the harvest which they worked so hard to produce.

The very last and lowest rung of the medieval social ladder was the Slave. Slaves had almost no rights at all, if they were lucky in the first place, to have any given to them. Slaves worked exclusively for the lord and were paid in food. Unlike Freemen and Villeins, they could not own land and they generally survived on donations given to them by wealthier people.

Life as a Peasant

As you can probably guess, peasant life was incredibly hard. If you didn’t work every single day of your life, you wouldn’t survive another day. To many peasants, regardless of class, life generally meant backbreaking field-labour. Under medieval law, the king owned everything. What the king gave to his lords was stuff which the lords had to pay rent on. For that rent, anything within the lord’s land belonged to him. This ‘everything’ included the crops, the people, the animals, the wood, tools, clothing, mills…everything. In theory, the very clothes that the peasants wore, belonged to their landlord.

Away from the watching eyes of the king, landlords were free to wield their not-inconsiderable power. Landlords were allowed to set their own laws and taxes, and did so freely. Peasants were often exploited, but those were careful and attentive could climb the social ladder. Villeins and Freemen could actually amass a comfortable level of wealth if they knew how to trade their goods and services correctly and they might be able to buy their freedom, or move away from the lord’s land and start new lives elsewhere.

The things that peasants could, or could not do, were many and varied. Villeins were not allowed to leave their lord’s land, but they could be allotted a small amount of their own land to farm for their own purposes. Peasants could not hunt on the lord’s estate, and lived mostly on bread and cheese and fish. Lords could dine on such delicacies as game birds, pork, beef, chicken and wine. Peasants had to tend to their lord’s land before they tended to their own and they were allowed to take wood from the lord’s land only if it was already dead (so that means no cutting down live trees for firewood).

Peasants who owned land were allowed to farm what they desired on their land, be it wheat, corn, barley…anything that would grow. However, wheat was a constant. Taxes were paid in wheat, and so a crop of it always had to be available. As I mentioned in my articles on castles, peasants expected to be allowed to seek refuge in their lord’s castle or fortified manor-house in the event of danger to the land. The local lord was also expected to give charity and alms to the poor or impoverished on his lands, and to take care of his peasants in the event of a famine, drought or other natural disaster.

Serfdom, or the system of peasants existing as unfree labour to a landlord, lasted for a surprisingly long time. Although the Feudal System collapsed in the 1600s with the rise of armies, the end of knights and the establishment of permanent towns and cities as places of home and business, serfdom itself existed for a long time, well into the 19th century in some places.

 

“I dub thee, Sir…” — Knights in Shining Armour

We have a lot of ‘Sirs’ these days. Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Elton John, Sir Michael Parkinson…all famous people…all knighted by Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, of the United Kingdom for various services. It must be fun to be able to say you’re a knight and have ‘SIR’ in front of your name. But these days, admittedly, being given a knighthood is more a ceremony than anything else. You wouldn’t expect Paul McCartney to put on a suit of armour, hop on a horse, cry out ‘Tally ho!’ and charge off to Iraq, would you?

While these days knights have very little in common with the “knights of old”, people have always had a fascination with these strange and alien beings, the best of the best, the bravest of the brave, the strongest of the strong, the Green Berets, the SAS or the Marines of the Medieval world…but who were knights? What did being a knight mean? And most importantly…

How the hell did you become a KNIGHT anyway?

What was a knight?

A knight was a medieval soldier, a gentleman soldier, and a gentleman soldier who fought a gentleman’s war. He was an elite warrior and fighter who swore an oath of alliegence to the king. This is why in movies set in the medieval period, some people who bow to the king would address him as “my liege”, as he was the person to whom they had sworn alliegence.

A knight was expected to be many things. He had to be an expert warrior above everything else, but he also had to be courageous, brave, courteous, protective, polite and respectful of authority. He had to be in top-condition all the time and he was expected to keep his equipment and his horse in fighting condition as well, for he never knew when the king might call upon him to ride into battle. The knight held a position of respect and responsibility in his community and he was expected to uphold the law and not to abuse his authority, which was given to him by the king.

The Code of Chivalry

A knight was expected to behave like a knight…but how was a knight expected to behave anyway?

A knight’s life was regulated over by a set of rules, regulations and guidelines known as the Code of Chivalry, or the Chivalric Code. These days, if someone is said to be behaving ‘chivalrously’, it’s generally assumed that he’s kind and polite, compassionate and helpful…however, that is just one tiny iota of the vast and complex code of honour and conduct that regulated a knight’s life. So what is the full Code of Chivalry?

The original Code of Chivalry, also called the ‘Knightly Virtues’, were divided into three parts, they were:

1. Warrior Chivalry. Here, you were expected to fight for what was right. You were expected to obey your lord or your your king (whoever was your ‘superior officer’, so to speak), you were expected to be merciful, courageous, fair, selfless and you were expected to protect those who could not protect themselves, be they the weakly, the sickly, the poor, the young or the delicate. So effectively…the sick, the elderly, the impoverished and the children. You were expected to fight to the best of your ability for a child or for the innocent poor, as well as you were expected to fight for the life of your liege lord or your king.

2. Religious Chivalry. Religious Chivalry meant being faithful to God. It meant protecting the innocent, it meant being generous to others, to protect the church and to battle evil and misdeed and to be a beacon of what was wholesome and good in the world.

3. Chivalry of Courtly Love. This is the branch of chivalry which most people still recognise today. The knightly virtue of Courtly Love meant that a knight was expected to be a man of honour. That he was to be as good as his word. That he was to be discreet. He was expected to be polite and courteous, especially to women. He was to protect the womenfolk and to be helpful, kind-hearted and understanding, firstly of his own lady (either the wife of his lord or the queen, or to his own wife), and thereafter, to all ladies indiscriminately.

A Knight’s Tale

We’ve covered what a knight was and how a knight was supposed to act…but now, probably the most important question is…how did you become a knight?

I’m sure everyone would love to be a knight in shining armour. I’m sure a lot of kids back in the Medieval Era wished they were knights. Dressing up in armour, doing brave things, winning all the hot chicks and getting bags of cash from the king for all the awesome stuff you did…It’d be like a professional wrestler today. But to become a wrestler…and more importantly…a knight…isn’t easy. In fact it was so not-easy that if you intended to become a knight, you had to start training from the very day you could walk! So…where did you start?

Hither Page, Come Stand By Me

First and foremost, to be a knight, you had to have some sort of social-standing in life already. Most people who became knights had wealthy parents, were the children of knights, or were the children of wealthy or powerful noblemen who had good connections with the king. Money was a key part of becoming a knight; you had to be rich, or at least well-off, because you needed the money to pay for the training, the horse, the armour, the sword…it all came out of your own pocket. And once you had the money and you were considered knight-material, the training would begin. Don’t get cushy, training a knight was the medieval equivalent of special forces bootcamp today.

Considering that the training was so hard, if you intended to be a knight, a real knight, a knight in shining armour, then you had to start training young. Very young. How young? Try seven years old.

That’s right. If you intended to be a knight, you had to start at the age of seven. These days, kids at the age of seven are in elementary school learning how to read. Back in the 14th and 15th centuries, if you intended to be a knight, you had to start training at this age…and it wasn’t softened up just because you were a kid. So how did it work?

Once the decision had been made to turn you into a knight (usually by your parents), you were sent off to a neighbouring castle or even to the king’s household itself. Here, you would start your training as a page.

A page was a knight-in-training. You learnt how to ride a horse, you learnt how to throw spears, how to fight with a sword (using a human-shaped dummy known as a quintain as a target). You had to learn how to ride a horse and use your sword effectively at the same time and you had to do sparring-matches with the quintain, stabbing its shield with your sword and then hopping out of the way as the dummy swung around on its stand after the strike (the dummy’s movement was to simulate an enemy knight swinging his sword back at you, after you’d taken your swipe at him).

Apart from all the physical training, the young page also learnt things which other children his age would give their eyes to be able to do. He was taught reading, writing, various languages such as Latin or French, and the lady of the house or a lesser noblewoman in the king’s household, would teach the boy courtly manners so that he would know how to act in front of the king (if he ever met him).

As you can see, being a page wasn’t just some weekend correspondence course you did through the post, or a weeklong workshop you did down at the local community center. Starting at the age of seven, you were expected to do this stuff for the next seven years at least! Your training as a page didn’t finally stop until you were fourteen, or in some cases, as late as sixteen!

‘Ello Squire!

Once you finished your page’s training, about the age of 15, you then became a ‘squire’, or, to use the full term, an arming-squire. Becoming a squire meant that you had a position something between a knight-in-training, a junior knight, and a personal manservant. A squire was a teenage trainee who was assigned to the service of a specific knight. His knight was his mentor and his master who was supposed to teach the young whip everything he was ever likely to need to know about knighthood. The squire did everything for the knight, he served his meals, he accompanied him, he cleaned up after him, he took care of the knight’s horse, he accompanied him on journeys, he followed him to tournaments and matches and he assisted him in combat.

Much like a valet, a squire was also expected to look after a knight’s clothes. And what does a knight wear?

Yep…a squire was expected to learn how to look after the knight’s suit of armour, in training for when he would someday (maybe) wear his own. The squire was expected to dress his knight and know where everything went and how it fitted and held together. He was expected to know how to do a few basic repairs to the metalwork and of course…he had to know how to keep the armour clean! His master couldn’t be a knight in shining armour if the armour wasn’t shining!

There was no Brasso back in the 15th century, no steel wool, no Simichrome polishing-paste. How was the squire to keep his knight’s kit clean?

14th and 15th century Brasso was a polishing agent made up of sand…vinegar…and…urine. The squire would rub this stuff onto the armour and scrub it in and wipe it off over and over and over, to get a nice, glittering shine. In the middle of a battle, a squire was expected to be hot to trot at a moment’s notice. When his master was out in the fray, slashing, bashing and crashing away at the enemy, the squire was expected to be able to repair broken pieces of equipment, he was expected to help the knight if he was injured, he was expected to run out into the middle of hell with a new piece of kit for his knight and he was expected to protect his knight if he was in trouble.


A full suit of armour, with the helmet, shoulderpads, breastplate, arm and legplates, kneepads, gauntlets (gloves) and sword. Under this would be a chainmail suit and more clothes to act as padding against the weight of the metal.

Along with all this stuff, one of the most important parts of becoming a knight was learning how to wear authentic, 15th century medieval armour! All knights wore armour, so as a squire, part of your more advanced training was to learn how to put on a suit of armour, how to take it off, and most importantly, how to move around and FIGHT in a suit of armour! These days when we think of protective clothing, we think of bulletproof vests or kevlar or something like that. Medieval armour was nothing like that. A real, full suit of medieval armour was made of steel and iron and it was incredibly heavy. You had the helmet, the visor, the breastplate, the backplate, the armplates, legplates, you had the gauntlets. Under all this you had the chainmail and your tunic and your trousers (hose). You had your socks and your shoes and your protective metal overshoes. Add to this your belt, your dagger, your sword and your shield…you were a walking tank, carrying at least (note, at LEAST) 30-50 kilograms of metal (about 80-100lbs). Part of your training was to dress up in full kit and spend the entire day in your armour, walking around and doing your regular duties. This was to get you used to wearing the armour in all kinds of weather and to be able to move around in it comfortably during battle. You were also expected to be able to mount, ride and dismount a horse in full armour.

I Dub Thee, Sir Knight

Exactly how long it took you to become a knight was variable. Official training from page to squire took seven years. How long it took you to become a fully-fledged knight from just being a simple arming-squire depended on a lot of things, but it usually hung onto the size of the squire’s nuts and how brave and courageous he was during battle. Don’t forget, a squire wasn’t just a servant, he was a junior knight-in-training, and he WAS expected to fight or at least to defend himself and his master in battle. If the squire was brave enough, if he was courageous and ballsy enough, if he had proven himself to his knight or to the local lord or even to the king himself…he might get a nice word about him put into the next ‘graduation ceremony’, and the king (or more commonly, the local lord), would consider him knight-material.

The Knighthood

If young Jimmy Ryan had started life out in the 14th century as the son of a wealthy nobleman who desired Jimmy to become a knight, Jimmy would have started training at the age of seven, as a page. At the age of fourteen, he became a squire. After proving himself worthy after years of loyal service, the knight might speak to the lord or the king (depending on who he served), or the squire himself might speak to the big man. If the lord or king decided that the squire was indeed worthy, he would agree to arrange the knighting ceremony. While there was no fixed age from which a squire became a knight, it usually happened in the squire’s early 20s.

Officially, a knighting is called an ‘accolade’ or a ‘dubbing’, hence the term “I dub thee…”. It was performed in the following manner:

The king or lord, having decided the squire was indeed ready for knighting, would arrange a time and place for the knighting ceremony. The night before the big day, the squire would dress in clean, white and red robes and clothes. He would pray and fast throughout the night, purifying his soul for the next great moment in his life. While this was going on, a priest would bless the sword which the squire was to recieve and then lay it down on an altar, ready for the ceremony.

In the early morning, before dawn, the squire would bathe, making sure he was thoroughly clean. He then put on his best clothes, attended confession with a priest, had breakfast, and then headed off to the place where the ceremony was to take place. By now, it would be dawn.

Just like a graduation ceremony from university today, this was a big event. It wasn’t just the knight, the king and a flock of peasants. It was everyone. The squire’s family, his best friends, the wealthy and the powerful and the respected families and personages…anyone who was anyone, would show up for the big day, to watch this historic event.

When everyone was assembled, the ceremony took place. The squire would kneel in front of his liege lord, or his king (again, depending on who was available), and the person in charge would raise the sword (placed on the altar earlier that day) and he would do the motions which we’re all familiar with. He would tap the flat of the sword-blade on one shoulder, and then on the other, while saying something along the lines of: “For services rendered, I dub thee, Sir James Ryan…”. In older times, the lord or king might actually strike the squire with the sword, but somewhere along the way, it was decided that this was a bit dangerous, so it was replaced with the gentle shoulder-taps which we recognise today. This over with, the squire was officially proclaimed a knight and what followed would be a night of food, wine and making merry, into the small hours of the next day.

 

“A woman might piss it out!” – The Great Fire of London

Everyone’s heard of the Great Fire of London; it’s one of those famous disasters that you grow up hearing about. It’s like the sinking of the Titanic or the 9/11 attacks or the Boston Molasses Flood of 1919. However, in most cases, it’s probably likely that you know it was a fire, that it was big, and that it happened in London and…that’s it. So…what was the Great Fire of London and what made it ‘Great’, anyway? Surely a city as old as London has had hundreds of fires. Why should this one stand out and be any different or any more memorable than any of the dozens that had come before it, or that had gone after it?

What was the Great Fire of London?

The Great Fire of London was a massive conflagration that started on Sunday, 2nd of September, 1666 and ended on Wednesday, 5th of September. Burning for four days and three nights, it destroyed four fifths of the ancient city of London, reducing thousands of homes, businesses and public institutions to rubble and ruin. It covered several hundred square yards of the city and it remained uncontrollable for several days, with Londoners’ 17th century firefighting-methods and technology, unable to effectively combat the blaze. Although the fire could have been stopped earlier, the bungling and indecision of the city’s officials caused a citywide catastrophe that left thousands of people homeless and destitute. But what was the cause of all this misery?

The Start of the Fire

    “…Some of our mayds [sic] sitting up late last night to get things ready against our feast to-day, Jane called us up about three in the morning, to tell us of a great fire they saw in the City…”

– Samuel Pepys.
Diary, Sunday, 2nd September, 1666.

The spark that was to ignite one of the most famous disasters in history, was born in the ovens of Mr. Thomas Farynor, official baker to His Majesty, King Charles II. In the 1660s, commercial bakeries had large, open-fire, wood-burning brick ovens, consisting of a small fireplace underneath and a cavity above, and a chimney and flue behind, to carry away the smoke. The fireplace at the bottom was where the burning fuelwood was set and burned, and the cavity above was where the dough was placed to be baked. At the end of the baking day, it was common for bakers and their assistants to rake and remove the ashes from the ovens and to put the kindling for the next day’s fires inside the empty fireplace. The bricks of the fireplace, heated by the day’s baking, would dry out the kindling ready for use the next day.

It is theorised that Farynor had placed his kindling and firewood for the next day into or near his ovens, to dry it out for the next morning’s use and had then retired to bed. Near midnight, the kindling and fuelwood caught fire. The flames, unchecked by the baker and his staff, quickly spread through the kitchen, setting fire to the wattle & daub walls of Mr. Farynor’s home. Farynor and his family (who lived above their bakery), were awoken by the smell of smoke. Finding their way downstairs blocked by smoke and flames, Farynor thrust his wife and children out of an upstairs window onto a neighbouring roof. With his family safe, Farynor made the jump himself, and turned back to help the family’s servant-girl to safety. The maid, too frightened to make the jump from the windowsill to the roof next door, was the fire’s first victim.

Downstairs, the flames spread rapidly. Houses in Stuart London, much like in the Tudor period before, were made of wattle and daub, materials used in construction for centuries before. A typical Tudor or Stuart-era building had strong, wooden beams creating the framework of the house, and then reeds which were interwoven between the beams and longer, upright reeds (forced into the ground), to create a rudimentary wall. These reeds or ‘wattles’, were then strengthened with a substance called ‘daub’, which was made up of…ehm…animal droppings…straw and water. Mixed correctly, ‘daub’ became a bit like plaster and once it was slapped onto the walls (by hand!), it would dry hard and solid. It was then painted or whitewashed over, eventually creating a structure that would look something like this:


A typical ‘wattle and daub’ house. The wattles are plastered over and filled in by the daub, which is then whitewashed. The thick, dark, oak beams give the house its strength.

Although they were cheap and easy to make, wattle and daub houses had one big problem…they were incredibly vulnerable to fire. The wattles, the oak beams, the floorboards and even the daub itself, were all amazingly flammable, and in the summer of 1666, houses were baked dry until just the tiniest spark could turn them into raging infernos. Thomas Farynor’s bakery (located on the aptly named Pudding Lane), was just one of thousands of similar structures that could be found in nauseating abundance in Stuart-era London.

The Fire Begins to Spread

Farynor and his family (with the exception of the housemaid) had escaped unscathed from their burning home, by running across the rooftops and then descending to the street below. Their house was not so lucky. Within minutes, first one, then two, then three, then the entire block of houses, was on fire! There hadn’t been a drop of rain in weeks, and the thatched rooves of the houses were as flammable as tissue-paper. All it took was one stray ember to set the roof on fire! With Mr. Farynor’s building burning like a bonfire, stray embers were everywhere, and nearby houses were soon raging infernos. People, roused by shouts and cries of alarm, quickly evacuated their homes, taking with them, whatever valuables they could lay their hands on at the time.

It was around this time that Lord Mayor, Sir Thomas Bloodworth, was roused and alerted about the fire. He surveyed the unfolding catastrophe, famously uttered that “A woman might piss it out!”, and then went back to bed, leaving the people of London to their fate and ignoring the crackling of the flames and the billowing smoke.

17th Century Firefighting

These days, we have all kinds of things to fight fires with: Fire extinguishers, high-pressure hoses, aerial water-bombers and fire retardents. Back in the 1660s, Londoners had to make do with buckets, archaic and ineffective water-pumps and water-squirts, to combat a blaze larger than anything that they’d had to deal with before! In the 17th century London, the main way for firefighters (or rather, citizens and soldiers, as actual firefighters didn’t exist), to combat a fire, was to create firebreaks. This isolated the fire and prevented it from spreading. The contained fire could then be drowned by bucket after bucket of water. One of the big problems with this method of firefighting, was that to create the firebreaks, it was necessary to tear down buildings in the fire’s path…private buildings. People’s homes and their shops and their businesses. Obviously, nobody wants their homes torn down, even if there is a fire on the way, and to override this, the firefighters needed the permission of the Lord Mayor. Bloodworth considered such actions to be unnecessary, so for several hours, the people of London fought a losing battle with a fire that was by now, totally out of their control.

The main combatants against the Great Fire of London included ordinary civilians, trainbands (militia-groups) and city watchmen. These three groups of people, later assisted by soldiers, had to fight a fire that by now, was covering several city blocks. The main firefighting tools of the day were buckets, made of either leather or wood, which were slung, hand-to-hand, in long bucket-brigades, water-pumps, which were huge, wooden water-barrels on wheels with hand-pumps and a leather water-hose, and the water-squirt, which was a big, metal syringe which could take up to three men to operate. While all of these firefighting tools were good against small blazes, they were useless against huge infernos. Bucket-brigades couldn’t deliver the water fast enough, mobile water-pumps were slow and cumbersome to move, and the water-squirts were too cumbersome for one man to operate and at any rate, had about as much power and effectiveness as a “super-soaker” water-gun!


One of the water-squirts or water-squirters used to fight the Great Fire of London.

The Great Fire of London

By dawn on the 3rd of September, the fire was well and truly out of control. Farynor’s bakery, along with the homes and businesses of hundreds of other Londoners, were now reduced to rubble and ashes. London Bridge, located a few streets away, was a blazing holocaust, and people who lived on the bridge fled their homes southwards, away from the flames. London Bridge in the Stuart Era had several shops and houses built upon it and this made it a great firetrap. Fortunately, breaks in the buildingworks, which allowed people who crossed the bridge, to look out between the buildings and over the water, acted as firebreaks, preventing the spread of the fire southwards. This came at a cost, though. The fire had destroyed the waterwheel at the north end of London Bridge, cutting off the firefighters’ main source of water to fight the blaze. Without the waterwheel (which pumped water up from the tidal River Thames, to street-level, several feet above), Londoners faced a serious shortage of water to put out the fire.

A Blast from the Past

Finally given permission to start ripping down buildings, firefighters and soldiers started pulling down or otherwise destroying buildings which stood in the fire’s path. King Charles II himself was alerted to the presence of the fire and wasted no time in rushing to the aid of his subjects, taking part in the firefighting efforts himself, by manning bucket-lines and helping to pull down buildings. The king’s presence amongst his subjects was a big morale booster…especially when the king pressed gold coins into the hands of his subjects whom he believed were working particularly hard to fight the fire, as an incentive to work even harder and not to give up the fight.

In a risky move, permission was granted to access the powder-stores of the Tower of London. In the 1660s, the Tower of London was still a working military base, and barrels of gunpowder, stored there since the end of the English Civil War, were now rolled out into the streets of the English capital. The idea was to use the gunpowder as an explosive to bring down buildings faster and more effectively, to create better firebreaks. This was a hit-and-miss method of firefighting which didn’t always work. Usually, people brought down houses using long firehooks – long poles or ropes with hooks on the end of them. The hooks would be attached to rafters or the rooves or windowsills of houses and then teams of men would pull the wooden frames out, causing the house to collapse.

Fleeing the Fire

By the afternoon of the 3rd of September, London was well and truly ablaze. The docks were on fire and the barrels of oil, wine, pitch and resin which were stored there, burned and exploded from the heat of the flames. Terrified Londoners fled from their homes, taking with them their most treasured belongings. With London Bridge now closed to traffic, people were forced to cross the river by going down the steps near the riverbank and paying watermen (the men who operated private river-ferries) to save their lives and their worldly goods. Watermen quickly raised their prices as the fire progressed, trying to make as much money as they coud of off the desperation of their fellow citizens. More people fled out of the city’s gates to the fields nearby, to escape the flames, smoke and the sound of the collapsing buildings. Strong winds and high temperatures fanned the fire rapidly northwards and westwards.

The Fires of Hell

    “…The fire coming on in that narrow streete, on both sides, with infinite fury. Sir W. Batten not knowing how to remove his wine, did dig a pit in the garden, and laid it in there; and I took the opportunity of laying all the papers of my office that I could not otherwise dispose of. And in the evening Sir W. Pen and I did dig another, and put our wine in it; and I my Parmazan [sic] cheese, as well as my wine and some other things…”

– Samuel Pepys.
Diary, Tuesday, 4th September, 1666.

The 4th of September was the most devastating day of the Great Fire. High winds and temperatures had made it utterly uncontrollable and time and time again, the fire jumped firebreaks made by soldiers and army officers who attempted to fight the fire with military efficiency. Charles II continued to rally his subjects to extinguish the flames by assisting them personally in their duties and by continuing to reward those who worked especially hard, with generous tips of gold and silver. The king placed himself in more danger on this day than in any other because of how fast the fire was spreading. This day saw the destruction of the famous St. Paul’s Cathedral, which was being restored by Sir Christopher Wren at the time. The wooden scaffolding around the building meant that the cathedral, made of stone and therefore thought impervious to flames, caught fire, destroying several hundred valuables stored therein for safekeeping during the blaze.

    “…The stones of Paul’s flew like grenados [sic], the melting lead running down the streets in a stream, and the very pavements glowing with fiery redness, so as no horse, nor man, was able to tread on them…”

– John Evelyn.
Diary, Tuesday, 4th September, 1666.

In a turn that must’ve scared thousands, the winds changed later in the day, and the fire started burning backwards along the way it had come. Although it had burned westwards for the past two days, it now burned, heading eastwards, towards the Tower of London and its valuable and dangerous stores of gunpowder. Guards at the tower awaiting orders from the Duke of York (later James II, and Charles II’s younger brother), finally decided that they could no longer hang around to wait for royal permission and took matters into their own hands. They rolled out the gunpowder and blew up several buildings in quick succession, thus halting the fire’s spread to the East.

The End of the Fire

The Great Fire of London finally ended on Wednesday, 5th of September. On this day, the winds subsided and the firebreaks had effectively starved the inferno of its fuel. With the fire beginning to die out, it was easier for firefighters now, to close in on individual blazes and extinguish them with buckets, water-pumps and water-squirters. Moorfields, then a public park on the outskirts of London, was turned into a refugee camp for the homeless, with tents and temporary housing set up there to house the newly destitute. King Charles II visited Moorfields once the fire had been successfully extinguished and encouraged his subjects to leave London and to start lives elsewhere, away from the destruction of their nation’s capital. How many people acted on the king’s suggestions of relocation, is unknown.

Rebuilding London

Once the fires were out, rebuilding London became everyone’s chief priority. There were several plans drawn up for the reconstruction of the city, but the bold new plans and layouts, which favoured wide roads, central squares, large public parks and large, open, welcoming avenues, were largely ignored by the city’s officials. While King Charles himself admired several of the new suggestions, he bowed to the pressure of the city’s government officials, who stressed the necessity of rebuilding the city as quickly as possible, as opposed to redesigning it from the ground up. As a result, London was rebuilt on virtually the same lines as it existed on, before the fire and London’s basic street-plan has remained unchanged for the past, nearly 400 years.

King Charles and Sir Christopher Wren, who was one of the architects who had submitted plans for a ‘new and improved’ London, did manage to keep some of their ideas, much to their relief and to our safety. The king decreed that houses should be made as fireproof as was then possible; thatched rooves were banned outright within the city of London, and buildings made of wood and wattle and daub were discouraged or made illegal, in favour of buildings made of safer materials such as stone, slate or brick. Houses which still had thatched rooves had to have these rooves replaced with roof-tiles, slate or shingles, to prevent the risk of the house catching fire in the future.

The Great Fire of London also saw the rise of insurance companies. After the Great Fire, fire-insurance companies sprang up all over town, and they issued various marks (metal plaques) which their customers could purchase and affix to the outer walls of their houses. In the event of their houses catching fire, the company would help to put out the fire, or if the house was destroyed, to compensate the homeowner for the loss of his home and contents.

 

Dip Pens and their Accessories


Oh, what a picturesque sight, eh? A man sitting at his desk, oil-lamp burning brightly, an inkstand open in front of him and a fine, gold dip-pen in his hand. Listen as he dips the nib of his pen into the inkwell, the soft ‘clink!’ as he taps the excess ink off the nib against the side of the well, and then the soft, scriffly scratching as the sharp, metal pen-point scrapes over the paper as he pens down the latest novel, scientific theory or groundbreaking essay on tropical medicine.

The Dip Pen has been part of human life for centuries, and its dominance only ended less than a hundred years ago. This article is devoted to that one, archaic writing instrument with which so many great documents and literary creations were penned down with, and to explore how they work, what came with them, and what they’re like to use. For the sake of convenience, this article will concentrate on the mass-produced steel pen-points which came into existence at the turn of the 19th century.

What is a dip-pen?

A rather obvious answer awaits this question. A dip-pen is a writing instrument (be it an actual steel pen, a quill, a brush or a reed) that is without its own, inbuilt, long-term ink-supply, and which must be dipped repeatedly (hence the name) into a source of ink, to allow it to write. Said source usually being a bottle of ink or ink contained in an inkwell. As I said above, this article will concentrate on the steel dip-pens which dominated much of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

How a dip pen works.

Dip-pens, like the fountain pens that succeeded them, worked by a combination of gravity and capillary action. Capillary action worked off the natural surface-tension of liquid while gravity directed the flow of ink. When a dip-pen is dipped into an inkwell, a small amount of ink clings to the underside of the specially-shaped nib. Surface tension keeps the ink on the underside of the nib, while capillary action and gravity draws the ink downwards towards the tip of the nib. Quite simple really. Unfortunately for mankind, this was as far as writing-technology got until the late 19th century when people began to understand the importance of air-pressure in making a good fountain pen.

Terminology.

A note of importance is the terminology. A dip pen is actually the steel pen-point…what most people today would call the nib. The shaft which the pen-point fitted into, was the pen-holder. If you went out to a stationer’s shop in the 1870s and asked for a ‘box of pens’, you’d recieve a small cardboard box filled with little steel pen-points. These days, however, the ‘pen’ is synonymous with ‘nib’, since the introduction of the fountain pen.

Preparing your nibs.

If you’ve just gone out to your local art-shop and bought some paper and a pen-holder or two and some nice dip-pen nibs and now you’re at home at your desk with your ink and your paper and your pens and you’re itching to start writing, there are a couple of things that you should do before starting your inky adventures. The first thing, rather obviously, is to select a dip-pen nib and slot it into your pen-holder. The second thing that you need to do is to prepare the nib for writing.

Now if you don’t understand this, I don’t blame you…but try this: If you get a fresh dip-pen nib and dip it into ink and then take it out of your inkwell or bottle, you’ll notice that the ink drips right off the nib, or otherwise, it forms nasty little ink-drops on the nib which crawl away from the slit and the pen-point like ants from a Huntsman spider. The reason for this is that the pen has a very thin film of oil on it, which was left there in the manufacturing of these nibs. You might get lucky and there won’t be any oil there at all, and you can write straight-off. However, in most cases, this won’t be the case. Now I’ve read several posts in forums about people who say: “I got my nibs, I got my pen-holder, but the ink refuses to stay on the nib. What do I do?”

Quite simple. Burn it. Or rather, temper it.

To do this, you need to strike a match, or light a candle, and pass the nib through the flame several times, making sure that all parts of the nib go through the flame at least once. What this does is remove the oil from the nib, and this allows the ink to cling to the nib as it should.

A word of warning. As these nibs are made of steel, they heat up VERY fast. Put the pen-nib into the pen-holder BEFORE running it through the flame, or else hold the pen-point with a pair of tweezers, first. Otherwise you’ll give your fingers a very nasty burn.

Having done that, your pen should hold ink perfectly fine.

The next thing to do is to smooth the nib. By this I mean, you need to smooth out the tip of your pen nib, with some very fine sandpaper, to give yourself a nice, smooth writing experience. This isn’t always necessary, but sometimes, pen-points (which are razor sharp) can tear and rip at the paper when you use them. Smoothing the nib and testing it occasionally, will give you a nice, comfortable writing experience.

Who uses dip pens?

“Hang on, hang on!” You’re saying, “Why the hell are you telling me this? Who the heck still uses dip pens these days!?”

You’d be surprised. A lot of people still do. Artists, calligraphers, illustrators, historical re-enactors and people who wish to explore the history of writing, or who wish to have a bit of fun when they write. I fall into this last category, myself. Also, fountain pen users sometimes find themselves drifting into using dip-pens for more interesting and creative writing-styles, which can’t be achieved with a fountain pen.

Dip Pens in School.

Even though dip-pen nibs were dying out by the first decades of the 20th century, they still persisted in schools for a surprisingly long time. Up to the 1950s or 1960s in some places. I’m sure many of you are wondering: “Why?”

Why would teachers and schools force kids to write with dip-pens when more effective, cleaner and more easily-used fountain pens were available?

There are several reasons for this, but it mostly boils down to convenience and cost.

In a school where you might have upwards of 1,000 boys, it was cheaper to supply them all with dip-pen nibs, which cost tuppence a box, rather than fountain pens, which were much more expensive. Ink for dip-pens is very easy to make and it was cheap. You could buy huge quantities of it (massive bottles of it, actually!) which would last for ages. Fountain pen ink had to be specially-made and formulated, and this was expensive.

But then you might ask: “Why didn’t students just buy their own fountain pens and fountain pen ink?”

Well…that was because they were students. You have to remember that in the 1920s, when practical fountain pens really started taking off, a decent fountain pen cost about $3.00-$5.00. While this doesn’t sound like much money today, in 1925, you could buy yourself lunch and a drink with twenty-five cents. Spending three whole dollars on a fountain pen was considered extravagant, expensive and far beyond the reach of most children’s pocket-money. And even if their parents bought them fountain pens to use, they would probably have warned their children not to take them to school, on account of how expensive they would’ve been.

It’s for these reasons that dip-pens lasted in schools for as long as they did.

Dip Pen Accessories.

Dip pens require various accessories to make them really work properly. These accessories are…

1. A leather writing-pad.

A leather writing-surface, either nailed into a desk or inlaid into a writing-box or writing-slope, was a necessary addition for dip pens. The cushioning of the leather allowed for the sharp, metal pen-point to travel smoothly over the page, without also scratching the wooden desktop underneath. It led to a more pleasurable writing experience.

2. A rocker-blotter or blotting-paper.

Dip-pens tend to write incredibly wet. By this, I mean they have a tendency to lay down a very generous amount of ink. Blotting-paper, either as a loose sheet, or cut into a strip and put into a rocker-blotter is essential. Failure to blot regularly can result in big, nasty, inky messes on your writing.

3. An inkwell or inkstand.

An inkwell was a necessary accessory to the dip-pen. Unable to carry their own ink-supplies, dip-pens need an inkwell near at hand when writing. Usually, it would be just the one inkwell, with a hinged lid. However on larger desks, you might have two inkwells, set in an ‘inkstand’, a special desk-accessory that held spaces for pens, inkwells, spare nibs and even, in some cases, space to store a rocker-blotter.


A typical inkstand, of silver and lead crystal (or glass). In this particular case, the stand would have been placed in the middle of a large, partner’s desk, for use by two men (note the opposing troughs, either side of the inkwells in the middle, for storing pens). The inkwells were filled with ink, usually two different colours (such as red and black), but in this case, probably both with black ink. The box between the two inkwells was for storing postage stamps.

Frequently Asked Questions.

Here are a few frequently asked questions about dip pens…

1. What kind of ink can I use?

Any ink, really. Traditionally, it was powdered ink or iron gall ink, and this is still the best ink to use, but regular fountain pen ink works just as well.

2. How long does a nib last?

You just got a new nib, it’s tempered, it’s smoothed, it’s ready to go…how long will it last before I have to change nibs?

That depends, really. It depends on the type of nib, it depends on how you use it and how frequently you use it. I’ve had dip-pen nibs that lasted a few weeks, I’ve dip-pen nibs that have lasted me the better part of a year.

3. Are dip-pen nibs really fragile?

You read this a lot in autobiographies of people who grew up in the early 20th century, of breaking dip-pen nibs at school. Or maybe your parents or grandparents used to tell you they broke dip-pen nibs when they were at school, and ink went everywhere and then the schoolmaster gave them a right, royal hiding with a bamboo cane for all the mess.

How fragile a dip-pen nib is, depends on the kind of nib it is. Most stiff, steel nibs are actually quite tough and VERY sharp. You could probably stab someone to death with one of them and then write a confession-note later with the same pen. It’s pretty hard to break them.

On the other hand, dip-pens which are flexible in nature, with softer, more malleable metals, might be more prone to breaking. I personally, have never broken a dip-pen nib. One the one occasion that I actually tried, it’s actually damn hard to do. That said, the nibs which students would have used in school were probably the cheaper steel nibs, which was all they could afford with their pocket-money, but that’s all I could say on the matter.

 

Welcome to The Rock: The Story and History of Alcatraz Island

The Rock; United States Federal Penitentiary: Alcatraz Island, one of the most famous and legendary maximum-security prisons of the 20th century. A Pacific hideaway for America’s most hardened criminals, and possibly the most famous prison in the entire world. What else could be more fascinating than a big house on an island in the middle of a bay surrounded in fog, that’s filled with the meanest, hardest, most dangerous men in the entire country? A place accessible only by boat, which cross the San Francisco Bay where man-eating sharks swim through the waters, to deter escapees?

The History of Alcatraz Island

Located a bit more than a mile off the coast of San Francisco, California, is a small island. The Spanish who arrived in California in the 18th Century gave this island the name ‘La Isla de los Alcatraces’: The Isle of the Pelicans.

From almost the very day it was discovered, Alcatraz was used for protective purposes. When California joined the United States as its 31st state in 1850, the US Army started taking a very big interest in Alcatraz. Considering that the island was right in the middle of the bay, the most obvious first action was one of shipping safety. The first lighthouse on the US West Coast was erected on Alcatraz in 1854. It lasted just over fifty years until the 1906 earthquake put it out of action. It was torn down and was replaced by another lighthouse on Alcatraz in 1909 (which still stands and operates today).

Initially, the US Army decided to make Alcatraz an island fortress, building barracks on the island and setting up gun-batteries along its perimeter. A total of 108 cannons were placed around the edges of the island, to protect the San Francisco Bay Area against naval attacks during the Civil War. The guns were never fired, and soon, soldiers began to find a new purpose for Alcatraz…a military prison.

Throughout the Civil War, Confederate sympathizers and the crews of privateer vessels were locked up on Alcatraz and from 1861, when the war started, until 1865, when it ended, hundreds of captured Confederate soldiers were housed here. In 1868, Alcatraz was officially turned into a military prison, and it was soon to recieve even more inmates. The Spanish-American War of the 1890s swelled the prison’s inmate-population from twenty-six, at the start of the war, to over 450 by its end.

In 1906, the San Francisco Earthquake and Fire levelled the famous coastal city, destroying several houses, public buildings and…the city’s prisons. Desperate to find somewhere to house these criminals, the city’s government shipped them to Alcatraz where they could be locked up in the military prison there, until further notice.

The Birth of The Rock

The 1906 earthquake levelled San Francisco, and the famous city by the bay was razed to the ground by the fires that started shortly after. With the city’s prisons destroyed, the local government had its criminals sent to Alcatraz to serve out the rest of their sentences, and so the island got its first taste of what it would soon become most famous for: housing hardened criminals.

The 1920s and the 1930s saw a dramatic rise in crime throughout the USA. Prohibition, followed by the Great Depression, had sparked an unprecedented crimewave, and gangsters, bootleggers, confidence-men, pimps, bank-robbers and the owners of illegal gambling dens were popping up like mushrooms. In the 30s, the American government started sitting up and taking notice, and all kinds of law enforcement agencies, from the FBI downwards, started rounding up all these crooks and shoving them in jail.

Unfortunately, these guys were too hot for jails to hold them, and time and time again, they busted out and went on the rampage all over again, or, they managed to bribe prison guards and get special priveliges inside prison, which allowed them to run their criminal empires, even from behind bars…Al Capone did this, and bank-robber John Dillinger managed to bust out of jail twice! It soon became painfully obvious that a new, super-prison, a real, hardcore maximum-security prison, was needed to lock these guys away for good. Enter Alcatraz.

The idea of building a prison on Alcatraz Island first emerged in the early 1930s. The United States Department of Justice acquired the island and its facilities in 1933 and were determined to make it a super-prison. Unfortunately…this was the Depression, and the money, which was desperately needed to upgrade the island’s aging military facilities into a working prison, was nowhere to be found. The Department appealed to Congress for help and funds, but were refused. But then, J. Edgar Hoover, the head of the FBI, stepped in. Having a super-prison to house all the guys who were giving him ulcers, was something he liked the sound of, very much indeed. With his…persistence, influence, pestering…call it what you will…the Department managed to get the funds to start renovations.


Alcatraz Island. The cellhouse is in the middle of the island. On the right is the Alcatraz lighthouse (built 1909, still operational today). To the right of the lighthouse are the ruins of the warden’s house, destroyed during an Indian occupation of the island after it closed in 1963.

The Main Cellhouse on Alcatraz was renovated, fences were repaired, guard-towers were put in, barracks for guards, prison staff and even their families, were either constructed or fashioned out of existing buildings, and the latest security-devices, such as mechanically-operated (later, electronically-operated) doors and metal-detectors were put in. Watch-towers had powerful searchlights and the guards up the top were all armed. Around the inside perimeter of the Main Cellhouse, an enclosed, metal walkway known as the Gun Gallery was constructed. From here, armed guards could stare down into the cellblocks below, and keep an eye on the prisoners.


One of the two-tier gun-galleries that run all around the inside of the main cellhouse.

Open for Business

In 1934, Alcatraz was opened for business, and the warden sent out an ‘open invitation’, so to speak, to all his other warden-buddies, inviting them to send to Alcatraz, all their hardest and most dangerous criminals. He would take care of them. The other wardens jumped at the idea, and soon prisoners were being shipped to Alcatraz in boatloads.

Getting to Alcatraz was quite an ordeal. When you arrived in San Francisco, you were put on the prison ferry. What followed was a choppy, mile and a half boat-ride across the San Francisco Bay towards the island. Once on the island, you were dumped into a prison truck and driven up towards the Main Cellhouse. When you arrived there, you were given a body-search, you were ordered to have a shower, you were given your blue, prison jumpsuit and then you were led to your cell.

There were four cellblocks on ‘The Rock’, as it came to be known. They were called A, B, C and D blocks. They were set out, side by side, lengthwise. A, B and C blocks were for the general prison population; D block was the Solitary Confinement block. The majority of the prisoners were housed in B and C blocks (one prisoner to each cell) and a few in A block. Only prisoners who misbehaved were locked in D-block.


A typical cell on Alcatraz. Not much space, huh?

One of the renovations made to Alcatraz in the 1930s was the introduction of ‘toolproof’ bars. These bars were specially designed to be untamperable. Originally, the bars on the cell-doors were just flat, steel bars, welded together. Unfortunately, these, with enough persistence, could be filed through, bent open and rendered completely useless as a form of imprisonment.


D Block, solitary confinement on Alcatraz.

The newer, ‘toolproof’ bars were specially designed to make filing through the bars almost impossible. They worked like this:

Instead of the ordinary, flat, steel bars, the doors had tubular steel bars in them, instead. The tubular steel bars were stronger and harder to saw through, but with enough persistence, again, you could cut through the bars. To remedy this defect, the new bars were filled with lots of iron rods. This gave the bars extra strength, and there was more metal to file through! But apart from that, the rattling of the iron rods inside the bars, when someone tried to file through them, was very loud. Once someone started filing…everyone and their brother knew what was going on…especially the guards. Only B and C blocks were upgraded with toolproof bars, however. This being the Depression, there wasn’t enough funds to also upgrade A-block, which is why it was not very much used.


“Broadway”, the main corridor of the Main Cellhouse, between B and C blocks.

The prisoners had their own names for certain parts of the prison. The main corridor between B and C blocks was called ‘Broadway’; the area at the end of ‘Broadway’, in front of the prison’s dining-hall, was called ‘Times Square’. The cellhouse dining-room was called the ‘Gas Chamber’. This was an apt name; as the dining-hall was one of the places where prisoners could harm other prisoners, or prison-guards (because they now had knives and forks!). The prison officials built canisters of tear-gas into the ceiling of the dining-hall. In the event of a riot, the gas could be released, to aid prison-guards in their attempts to restore order.


The dining-hall on Alcatraz. Note the small, round gas-canisters attached to the rafters.


A closeup of one of the tear-gas canisters inside Alcatraz’s dining-hall.

The Daily Grind

Once you were on The Rock, one thing that immediately got to you, was the Daily Grind. This was the boring, slow, monotonous daily routine which happened seven days a week, three hundred and sixty-five days a year, with almost no exceptions.

7:00am. You woke up, roused by the cellhouse bell. Your cell was tiny and cold. How tiny? Five feet wide, nine feet long, about six and a half feet high. You could barely get up and stretch your arms!

7:20am. The cell-doors were opened (by a special set of levers). Prisoners stepped outside their cells and waited. They were not allowed to talk and they were not allowed to look anywhere except directly across the corridor.

7:30am. Breakfast. Prisoners were allowed to talk (quietly!). They were allowed to eat as much as they liked, but were not allowed to waste food. All silverware was meticulously counted by the guards. A stray fork or knife could be fashioned into a deadly weapon.

7:50am. Breakfast finishes. Prisoners on work-details line up. Prisoners not on work-details are led back to their cells. Work-details included working in the laundry, the woodwork shop, the metalworking shop, cleaning the cellhouse or working in the prison library.

8:00am. Prisoners are led to the buildings where they will work. They have to pass through the metal-detector (called the ‘snitch-box’ by the inmates) on their way out of the cellhouse.

8:20am. Prisoners started work.

10:00am. Prisoners are allowed a short break.

10:08am. Work recommences, until 11:35am.

11:35am. Work finishes. Prisoners stand to be counted.

12:00 Noon. Lunch, for 20 minutes.

From 12:20-1:00pm, prisoners are locked in their cells and counted again. After this, they’re led back to work.

At 4:40pm, the prisoners have dinner. Dinner ends at 5:00pm. Prisoners are sent back to their cells and locked in for the night.

5:30pm. Another head-count.

11:30pm. A final headcount. Lights out.

Famous Prisoners and Escapes

Alcatraz boasted some very famous prisoners in its 29 years of operation. Al Capone, Robert Stroud, Alvin Karpis and Machine-Gun Kelly, to name but a few. Al Capone had a job cleaning the cellhouse and was known as the Wop with the Mop.

Alcatraz was often toted as being ‘escape-proof’. It was said that the one and a half miles from the island to San Francisco was too cold to swim, that the currents were too strong and that the bay had man-eating sharks in it! Well…the bay did have sharks…but they were harmless, sand sharks, but the guards encouraged the ‘man-eater’ rumors to scare the prisoners, anyway.

Despite all this, despite all the security measures, there were escapes from Alcatraz. A total of thirty-six prisoners tried to escape from The Rock, in fourteen separate attempts. Only a handful of these were ever successful…although how successful is still debated.

The two most famous escapes were the ‘Battle of Alcatraz’, from the 2nd-4th of May, 1946, in which two guards and three prisoners were killed by gunfire and grenades, and the 1962 escape involving the Anglin brothers.

In the ‘Battle of Alcatraz’ of May, 1946, it took several prison guards, plus two platoons of US Marines to regain control of the cellhouse. The botched escape-attempt, in which the prisoners hoped to escape to the exercise yard, scale the wall and make it to the sea, was foiled when the key put into the lock of the door to the yard, proved to be the wrong one. The lock jammed and the men found their escape-route cut off. A furious gun-battle ensued between prison guards and the prisoners who had managed to obtain firearms from dead prison officers. The prisoners who had started the ‘battle’ were eventually killed by grenades, thrown into the space where they were holed up, by prison guards and the marines who were sent to storm the cellhouse.

The other famous escape-attempt happened in 1962, when three men, the Anglin Brothers, John and Clarence, and their friend, Frank Morris, busted out of the cellhouse by chipping away at ventilation-grills under their cell sinks and finding their way through the utility-corridors to the roof of the cellhouse. Once on the roof, they climbed down the outside of the building and made it down to the sea without being spotted. Here, they fashioned a raft out of raincoats and managed to paddle away from the island and were never seen again. This daring escape was depicted in the film “Escape from Alcatraz”, starring Clint Eastwood. The popular science show “Mythbusters” carried out a similar escape from Alcatraz to see just how plausible such an event was. They concluded that a successful escape from the island-prison like this, was plausible, and that the men might really have managed to escape from the most famous prison in the world!

The end of The Rock

Rising maintanence costs, combined with the bad publicity of all the escape-attempts, meant that Alcatraz was beginning to become a big burden on the US government. One of the biggest problems with Alcatraz was that it cost so damn much money to run! Nothing grew on Alcatraz. It didn’t even have any soil! Everything that the prison officials wanted for Alcatraz, from building materials to topsoil for plants, to food, all had to be shipped to the island. This made it a very expensive prison to run. To add to this: cost-cutting measures taken during the Depression, when money was tight, meant that the prison was in desperate need of repair by the early 1960s. Corrosion caused by the salt-water used to flush the prison toilets (just one of the several cost-cutting measures), meant that the plumping and the structural integrity of some of the buildings, was greatly compromised.

The escape attempts from Alcatraz had proven to the US public that people could escape from their legendary ‘inescapable prison’ and that even jammed on a rock in the middle of a bay, wasn’t enough to stop hardened criminals. People lost their confidence in Alcatraz, and in 1963, after 29 years of operation, the prison closed for good.

The Legend of Alcatraz

Even though it was only used for barely more than two dozen years, Alcatraz remains the most famous prison in the world. It recieves over one million tourists a year, who, like so many thousands of prisoners before them, took the ferry across the bay towards the island, only this time, they go there to explore, and not to be locked up. The prison has been the location of at least three films and when J.K. Rowling wrote her “Harry Potter” series, her maximum-security wizarding prison was very similar to Alcatraz. It was in the midde of the North Sea, it was considered inescapable and it even had a similar name: Azkaban. And just like Alcatraz, it was considered the scariest prison in the world.


Azkaban Prison as it appears in the Harry Potter films.