The macabre case of serial killer ‘Jack the Ripper’, whom it is believed murdered at least five prostitutes in the 1880s, has fascinated and intrigued people for more than 120 years.

With the passage of time, memories and evidence have faded or disappeared.

After 120 years can forensics be employed to help solve the case?

In what will probably be the first of several posts, I will look here at the application of forensic linguistics to the ‘Ripper’ murders -

Dr Christopher Davies And The Forensic Science Service

The identity of Jack The Ripper has been questioned ever since his killing spree in the 1880s.

There has been much specualtion, and many different names put forward over the years, all seemingly with good reason. However, the true identity of the killer has never been proven beyond doubt, though the Forensic Science Service has now provided some interesting new evidence, thanks to its specialist skills.

An expert, Dr Christopher Davies, conducted handwriting analysis on annotations in a book (an autobiography entitled ‘The Lighter Side of my Official Life’, written by Dr Robert Anderson, the Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police at the time of the crime).

The book, which is believed to have been owned by the Chief Inspector who investigated the original case, Donald Swanson, contains notes naming Kosminski as the Ripper.

Chief Inspector Swanson

Chief Inspector Swanson noted that the reason the only witness to one of the crimes would not speak out against the alleged Ripper was because ‘The suspect was also a Jew, and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind.’

The book was loaned to the Metropolitan Police Crime Museum in London in July 2006.

Dr Davies, who is based at the Forensic Science Service’s Lambeth Laboratory, was then asked for his expert opinion as to whether the writing actually did belong to Chief Inspector Swanson.

This was determined by comparing it to that in a memoranda he was known to have written.

Linguistic Comparison

Dr Davies compared the two samples of writing for their general style, the size, spacing, fluency and proportions and found there was a high probability that they were written by the same person – Donald Swanson.

The report containing his findings will now be kept along with the annotated book at the Crime Museum.

Dr Davies hopes that his findings will give those interested in the Ripper mystery something new to debate upon -

“What was interesting about analysing the book was that it had been annotated twice in two different pencils at different times, which does raise the question of how reliable the second set of notes were as they were made some years later.

There are enough similarities between the writing in the book and that found in the ledger to suggest that it probably was Swanson’s writing, although in the second, later set, there are small differences.

These could be attributed to the ageing process and either a mental or physical deterioration, but we cannot be completely certain that is the explanation.

The added complication is that people in the Victorian era tended to have very similar writing anyway as they were all taught the same copybook, so the kind of small differences I observed may just have been the small differences between different authors.

It is most likely to be Swanson, but I’m sure the report will be cause for lively debate amongst those interested in the case.”

Alan McCormick, Curator of the Crime Museum, said -

“The evidence provided by Dr Davies makes for fascinating reading and really helps us to judge the significance of the annotations in the book naming Kosminski as Jack the Ripper.

I’m delighted he has agreed to let us keep the report at the Crime Museum permanently and I’m sure copies of it will be requested time and time again from the Forensic Science Service.”

Your Views

Has the application of forensic linguistics to the Ripper case given us answers or simply asked for questions?

Can such modern techniques be applied to such an old case with any certainty or reliability?

Could Kosminski really have been Jack The Ripper?

What do you think?

As you can imagine, the situation was beginning to get a little tense as they ran out of conversation topics.

The next morning the scientist’s friend says, ‘As we’re beginning to get on each other’s nerves why don’t we split up today? I’ll walk to the north and spend the day looking around whilst you go south and do the same. Then tonight when we join up again we can share our experiences over dinner.’

Hiking

The forensic scientist agrees and takes a hike to the south.

His friend takes a trek to the north.

Story time

That night, over dinner, the first man relates the story of his day -

‘Today I hiked into a beautiful valley. I followed a stream up into a canyon and ate lunch.

Then I swam in a crystal clear mountain lake. As I sat out and dried, I watched deer come and drink from the stream.

The wildflowers were filled with butterflies and hawks floated all day overhead.

How was your day?’

SEX

The forensic scientist says -

‘I went south and ran across a set of railroad tracks.

I followed them until I came across a beautiful young woman tied to the tracks.

I cut the ropes off, gently lifted her off the tracks, and we had sex in every imaginable way all afternoon.

Finally, when I was so tired I could barely move, I came back to camp.’

‘Wow!!!‘ the first guy exclaimed, ‘Your day was MUCH better than mine. Did you get a blow job, too?’

‘No,’ says the scientist - ‘I couldn’t find her head.’

Bentley was quickly apprehended, at which time he was alleged to have said “Let him have it Chris” to Craig.

This immediately preceded Craig shooting and killing another officer.

Trial

When the case came to trial there was doubt even then as to whether “Let him have it Chris” meant killing the policeman or surrendering the gun.

Bentley claimed that he didn’t even know that Craig had a firearm.

Also, Bentley was widely known to have referred to his friend as “kid” or “kiddo” rather than by his given name anyway.

Ultimately, Bentley was convicted primarily based upon his own statement to police -

statement of: DEREK WILLIAM BENTLEY, aged 19

1 Fairview Road, London Road

Norbury

Electrician

who saith:

I have been cautioned that I need not say anything unless I wish to do so, but whatever I do say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence.

I have known Craig since I went to school. We were stopped by our parents going out together, but we still continued going out with each other - I mean we have not gone out together until tonight.

I was watching television tonight (2nd November 1952) and between 8pm and 9pm Craig called for me.

My Mother answered the door and I heard her say I was out.

I had been out earlier to the pictures and got home just after 7pm.

A little later Norman Parsley and Frank Fazey called. I did not answer the door or speak to them.

My Mother told me that they had called and I then ran out after them.

I walked up the road with them to the paper shop where I saw Craig standing.

We all talked together and then Norman Parsley and Frank Fazey left.

Chris Craig and I then caught a bus to Croydon. We got off at West Croydon and then walked down the road where the toilets are - I think it is Tamworth Road.

When we came to the place where you found me, Chris looked in the window. There was a little iron gate at the side. Chris then jumped over and I followed.

Up to then Chris had not said anything. We both got out on to the flat roof at the top. Then someone in a garden on the opposite side shone a torch up towards us.

Chris said: “It’s a copper, hide behind here.” We hid behind a shelter arrangement on the roof.

We were there waiting for about ten minutes. I did not know he was going to use the gun. A plain clothes man climbed up the drainpipe and on to the roof. The man said: “I am a police officer - the place is surrounded.”

He caught hold of me as as we walked away Chris fired. There was nobody else there at the time. The policeman and I went round a corner by a door. A little later the door opened and a policeman in uniform came out. Chris fired again then and this policeman fell down. I could see he was hurt as a lot of blood came from his forehead just above his nose.

The policeman dragged him round the corner behind the brickwork entrance to the door.

I remember I shouted something but I forget what it was. I could not see Chris when I shouted to him - he was behind a wall. I heard some more policemen behind the door and the policeman with me said, “I don’t think he has many more bullets left.” Chris shouted “Oh yes I have” and he fired again.

I think I heard him fire three times altogether. The Policeman then pushed me down the stairs and I did not see any more. I knew we were going to break into the place, I did not know what we were going to get - just anything that was going. I did not have a gun and I did not know Chris had one until he shot.

I now know that the policeman in uniform is dead. I should have mentioned that after the plain clothes policeman got up the drainpipe and arrested me, another policeman in uniform followed and I heard someone call him ‘Mac’. He was with us when the other policeman was killed.

The jury opted to believe that Bentley’s call was an incitement to Craig to murder the policeman. With Craig only being 16, it was Bentley who was later sentenced to death. On the 28th January 1953 Bentley was hanged for the murder of PC Sidney Miles.

Death Sentence

Bentley was executed even though -

He was in police custody 20 minutes before the murder
Had the mental age of an 11 year old
Didn’t commit the murder himself

For many years Bentley’s parents and sister, Iris, fought to have his name cleared. However, it would be his niece who would be present when that finally happened on July 30th, 1998.

Forensic Exoneration

Professor Malcolm Coulthard was able to prove that the statement from Bentley contained certain unusual linguistic features. The wording was compared with other statements from suspects along with records written purely by police officers. This showed that each had a certain type of writing style.

Analysis of Bentley’s statement showed that the usage of the word “then” was in a way synonymous with police reporting. The statement also read as if Bentley was answering questions. His conviction had rested largely upon the fact that he was meant to have penned the statement himself and that it was a free-flowing account of events.

One can only assume now that the police felt rightly wronged at the death of one of their own. With Craig too young for capital punishment, did they perjure themselves in court to secure the conviction of Bentley?

Forensic linguistics research of the trial judge’s closing comments also show that he was applying impartial pressure to the jury to convict Bentley. Despite them finding Bentley guilty they took the unprecedented step of announcing their verdict whilst also requesting the judge to show mercy.