Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files

by Marriott, Trevor

  As I continued with my investigation the emergence of the new facts, which collectively put together made a strong case for Carl Feigenbaum having some involvement in the Whitechapel murders and being the elusive Jack the Ripper. These facts are that the first murder in what I believe to be a catalogue of horrendous murders committed by Feigenbaum could have been the Whitechapel murder of Martha Tabram on August 7th 1888. There were no other recorded murders in the UK, which were suggested as being connected to Jack the Ripper before that date. There were no other similar undetected murders in Europe or elsewhere before that date. So if Feigenbaum was Jack the Ripper where was he prior to August 1888?

  Well it has been documented that he was a merchant seaman but did he spend all of his life at sea? Lawton his lawyer had stated that Feigenbaum had told him he had these urges to kill why had they not manifested before? Or perhaps they had. What if in Germany he had attempted such atrocities before and had not succeeded in actually killing someone and as a result had been apprehended and imprisoned or incarcerated in an asylum? He may have then been released having served a sentence, or he could have been granted a pardon.

  It was the custom in Germany in Victorian times that when a new German Emperor ascended to the throne, he would grant pardons to prisoners. It is known that a large number of these prisoners when released took up work as merchant seamen. Coincidentally in June 1888 Prince Wilhelm II became emperor so Feigenbaum could have been released under such a pardon.

  At 11am on 27th April 1896 was the final chapter on Jack the Ripper about to be written? Feigenbaum was transferred from the condemned cell on death row in Sing Sing Prison to the execution chamber. Warden Sage, two keepers, and Father Creeden of Sing Sing Prison, attended him. During his death march he repeated the prayers of the Roman Catholic Church and kissed the crucifix, which he carried before him. Feigenbaum was self-possessed and took his seat in the electric chair without any urging. As the straps were being buckled, he took Warden Sage’s hand warmly kissed it, and with a smile wished the warden and the priests goodbye. He then took off his spectacles and handed them to Father Bruder, with the request that they be buried with his body.

  The death mask was then adjusted and at 11.16am an electric current of 1820 volts with amperage of 7.5 was turned on and continued for 20 seconds when it was reduced to 300 volts. Whereby it was kept for 40 seconds and then turned off. After a few seconds a second shock of 1820 volts was given, when it had been turned off doctors pronounced Feigenbaum dead.

  Feigenbaum’s body was then removed to the operating room where the autopsy took place. It showed that death must have been instantaneous. He made his will that same morning supposedly leaving money in a German bank in New York to his sister, reserving $90 to pay his funeral expenses. The warden and the clergymen said that he even protested his innocence of the crime for which he was convicted right up to the moment that he went to the electric chair.

  Following his execution prison records show that his body was taken to a Roman Catholic cemetery in Poughkeepsie, New York where he was buried. This cemetery was probably St Peter’s Roman Catholic Church Cemetery; this was the only Roman Catholic Church cemetery in that area at that time. Burial records from this cemetery were apparently destroyed in a fire in the 1900s, so the actual whereabouts of his grave is unknown.

  Ongoing investigative work revealed what I believe positively confirmed the real identity of Carl Feigenbaum. It was suggested at his trial that his real name was Anton Zahn. I found out that Anton Zahn was born in Gau-Bickelheim, and did in fact have a sister called Magdalena and a brother called Johann. It is unclear as to whether this brother is the same person named John mentioned during the trial of Feigenbaum, and the same person who gave a press interview in New York the day before the execution.

  During that press interview Feigenbaum’s brother John stated that he knew his brother had been travelling around the Midwest of America and mentioned Wisconsin and Chicago. This in itself now corroborates what Lawton told the press. His brother also confirmed that Feigenbaum had been working as a merchant seaman on a Bremen based ship but stated that was not till 1891 and then left the sea in 1892. However, he could have been lying to protect him... It would suggest that he was lying to protect his brother because despite owning up to being his brother he never told the press the correct family name or the correct name of his murderous brother.

  We know that Feigenbaum was a compulsive liar as was proven at his trial and corroborated by the trial transcript, which I obtained in its entirety. Although during his cross-examination Feigenbaum stated that although he had been using the name Anton Zahn and had been found in possession of letters relating to Anton Zahn he was not in fact Anton Zahn but really Carl Feigenbaum. He stated that he was related to Anton Zahn by reason of the fact that Zahn’s father and his mother were brothers and sisters. If I am right then we know that there was a Carl Feigenbaum who was a merchant seaman and whose identity Zahn may have assumed at some point, perhaps they even served together as merchant seamen.

  Another piece of evidence which later came to light and I believe is significant in the case against Feigenbaum came from an article I discovered in the National Police Gazette dated May 16th 1896. It shows another interview Lawton gave to the press following Feigenbaum’s execution. The article reads:

  "I have a statement to make," he said, "which may throw some light on this case. Now that Feigenbaum is dead and nothing more can be done for him in this world, I want to say as his counsel that I am absolutely sure of his guilt in this case, and I feel morally certain that he is the man who committed many, if not all of the Whitechapel murders. Here are my reasons, and on this statement I pledge my honor:

  "When Feigenbaum was in the Tombs awaiting trial I saw him several times. The evidence in his case seemed so clear that I cast about for a theory of insanity. Certain actions denoted a decided mental weakness somewhere. When I asked him point-blank, 'Did you kill Mrs. Hoffman?' he made this reply: 'I have for years suffered from a singular disease, which induces an all-absorbing passion; this passion manifests itself in a desire to kill and mutilate the woman who falls in my way. At such times I am unable to control myself.'

  "In pondering over this statement of Feigenbaum's I began to wonder whether the sensation he described might not form an explanation of other cases. I already knew that he had been working for many years as fireman on the Atlantic liners, sometimes on the Bremen boats, sometimes on the White Star, and at others on the French and Inman lines. He ceased to follow the sea about six years ago.

  "On my next visit to the Tombs I asked him whether he had not been in London at various times during the whole period covered by the Whitechapel murders. 'Yes, I was,' he answered. I asked him whether he could not explain some of those cases on the theory which he had suggested to me, and he simply looked at me in reply. When I asked him again whether he was or was not guilty of Mrs. Hoffman's murder, he said: 'I'll affirm when I go on the stand and God will believe me just as well.'

  "You will remember the cases of murder and mutilation of women in Wisconsin some years ago. On the trial we had some evidence that this man had frequently been in Wisconsin. The long knife with which Mrs. Hoffman was killed, and the whetstone produced at the trial bore the marks of a Wisconsin firm at Madison, I think. These both belonged to Feigenbaum, and he had carried them for some time.

  "Now we had no money and could not employ experts on insanity. To admit that Feigenbaum committed the crime in view of the motive alleged by the prosecution was fatal unless I had expert testimony to back it. And accordingly we went to the jury on the theory that Weibel, Feigenbaum's unknown companion, that night, had committed the murder."

  In support of the remarkable theory set up by Mr. Lawton there are these facts: The throat of Mrs. Hoffman had been gashed across again and again. Feigenbaum stood over her, with the bed-clothes pulled down and the knife upraised, so as to begin mutilation of the body, when young Hoffman awoke and saw him.


  In every case of murder in Whitechapel the throat of the victim had been cut with a long, sharp knife, which might have been of the kind carried by Feigenbaum. In every case the body was horribly mutilated.

  Feigenbaum admits that he was frequently in London at different periods during the time covered by the murders, which extended from 1887 until the summer of 1891. His description as he was seen yesterday fully answers that of the man seen with two of those unfortunates, Mary Jane Kelly and Elizabeth Stride. Only on these occasions was the Whitechapel murderer ever seen.

  In the case of old Shakespeare, who was butchered in this city, the description of the man who went with her into the room in the East River Hotel corresponded with that of the Whitechapel mutilator. And Feigenbaum's appearance without his beard, which he occasionally wore, exactly corresponded with that description.

  The testimony of the witnesses at the Inquest on the Whitechapel women and on Shakespeare agreed on this point, that the murderer spoke German or with a strong German accent, and seemed to belong to the sea.

  The story is a most remarkable one, and it may be the famous Whitechapel fiend is dead.

  It is interesting to note that he had apparently been a soldier in the Prussian Army and had fought at the Battle of Gravelotte in 1870. As a soldier he would have no doubt been skilled in the art of using a bayonet or knife to cut the throats of the enemy. If one looks at the way the Whitechapel women were murdered and the force used to cut their throats to the point of decapitation and the same with Mrs. Hoffman it adds further weight to the belief that Feigenbaum without a doubt could have been responsible for one some or all of the Whitechapel murders and even some of those murders in other countries. The article also indicated that Feigenbaum admitted to being in London at the time of the murders.

  CHAPTER EIGHT

  THE MEDICAL EXPERTS

  I subsequently published the results of my investigation up until that time in a reissue in 2007 of my book “Jack the Ripper: The 21st Century Investigation” which contained all the new evidence gathered on the case.

  Despite presenting the results of what I perceived to be an unbiased investigation, which quite clearly has now cast a major doubt about a number of important previously accepted aspects of the case for over 125 years.

  There were those who would not accept the results of my investigation. One major aspect of this investigation that was not widely accepted was my suggestion that other persons removed the organs and not the killer from Chapman and Eddowes, and in the Eddowes case the issues regarding the apron piece.

  In an attempt to conclusively prove or disprove this theory in greater depth I set out to add even more corroboration to this particular theory I had put forward. I like many others in the past had wondered whether 21st century forensic experts and technology could ever assist in trying to solve these murders. Patricia Cornwell had spent a lot of money trying to prove by modern-day forensic methods the guilt of her suspect Walter Sickert but had failed.

  I enlisted the help of three experts from the world of medicine. These were Dr. Ian Calder a pathologist, Edmund Neale a consultant gynaecologist, and Phillip Harrison an eviscerator, and the manager of a hospital mortuary. The latter is involved in the removal of organs from deceased persons on a daily basis. I provided them all with full details of all the murders together with the inquest and original post-mortem reports and asked them to comment on the issues regarding the removal of the organs which I had raised. Their statements are set out below and make very interesting reading.

  PHILLIP HARRISON

  I have worked at Bedford Hospital Mortuary for 18 years, the last eight as Manager of the Mortuary Services. I have qualified with distinction in the Certificate in Anatomical Pathology Technology and the Diploma in Anatomical Pathology Technology. This involves having an in-depth knowledge of anatomy and physiology. In my time at Bedford Hospital Mortuary I have been involved in approximately 6,000 post-mortems.

  Bedford Hospital Mortuary is HM Coroners Mortuary for Bedford and the surrounding areas. This means that all sudden, unexpected deaths in the locality are dealt with at the Hospital. This would include Road Traffic Collisions, suicides etc.

  The Mortuary is also used for post-mortems with regards to murder victims. Over the years I have seen many such victims of murder many with a multitude of different types of wounds and injuries. These have taken every guise from physical assaults to stabbings. My job in these cases is to assist the Home Office Pathologist with the examination. This involves helping to record injuries and assist the pathologist in an attempt to find an explanation for injuries and wounds in and upon the victims together with their patterns.

  One of my main tasks is to eviscerate a body in preparation for the Pathologist to attend. He will then closely examine the organs and will attempt to establish a cause of death. Evisceration is the removal of all internal organs using skilled surgical techniques. The normal procedure is to open the body with an incision along the midline from the Adam’s apple to the pubic bone. The sternum or breastbone is also removed. This is done to make as large as possible opening to examine and then remove the organs. Without doing this it would be extremely difficult to remove organs.

  When removing vital organs great care needs to be taken at all times. I use surgical scalpels and other very sharp instruments; generally I use a 4-inch blade knife that is as sharp as a scalpel. I find this easier to use in tight confined spaces when eviscerating. Internal organs can be easily damaged if handled in a rough manner. There are many different ways organs are removed, either singularly or in one block. Some organs are very difficult to locate because of their position in the body. The kidneys are a prime example as they are at the rear of the abdominal cavity and encased in their own protective layer of renal fat.

  As an experienced eviscerator I have been asked to examine the official records and post-mortem reports appertaining to three specific murder victims of the Whitechapel murders of 1888, which were attributed to a killer known as Jack the Ripper.

  These three victims were Catherine Eddowes, Annie Chapman and Mary Kelly. I have reviewed the post-mortem reports trying to ascertain the level of expertise required to carefully remove the organs so soon after death. The other aspect of these murders I have been asked to comment on is whether the organs could have been removed by the killer at the crime scene or whether they could have been removed at another location by person or persons unknown prior to the post-mortems being carried out.

  I will firstly comment on the murder of Annie Chapman. She was described in the post-mortem report as showing signs of great deprivation. I mention this as in my opinion evisceration is more difficult in a person with a poor covering of body fat. When a person is very thin the skin at autopsy loses its elasticity. It is more difficult to carefully remove organs when the opening cannot be stretched. Surgeons use a retractor to make the opening as big as possible. Surgeons need as much room as possible but would work internally in what would seem to the layperson as an impossibly small opening. The skin is very elastic and a small incision can be stretched to make it quite large.

  Chapman’s abdomen was laid open. For someone with anatomical knowledge and experience the small intestines are the easiest to remove from the mesenteric attachments. I would imagine the original pathologist is referring to the small intestines. With great skill and practice it is easy to remove the small intestine from its mesenteric attachments with one cut if speed was of an essence. But it does take skill and many years of practice.

  I am right-handed and I would suggest the perpetrator to have been right-handed as the neck wound indicates that and the fact that the organs removed from the abdominal cavity were placed at the head of the body.

  A piece of stomach was found on the left shoulder. This could have been cut and removed accidentally during the frenzied attack as the intestines, and in particular the large intestine were removed and placed to one side.

  An interesting point is the removal of the pelvic o
rgans. The report states that the uterus and its appendages and the upper portion of the vagina, and parts of the bladder had been entirely removed. To remove the appendages, the uterus, the fallopian tubes and ovaries in one frenzied attack and one slice of a blade would be almost impossible. It is a very difficult and quite a skilled undertaking to remove these organs carefully even by today’s methods especially as the comment is that they were cleanly cut and the cut missed the rectum. These specific organs are in very close proximity to each other and at post-mortem are removed by a mixture of blunt dissection and sharp knife. Even doing this carefully it is still possible to damage some of the surrounding organs and tissues. There would have been no need for the killer to remove the intestines to facilitate the removal of the uterus.

  It is stated that a knife of at least five to six inches long was used. It may be possible under normal modern-day hospital conditions but would have been almost impossible given the amount of mutilations and the fact that it was dark.

  This brings me back to the signs of great deprivation. I would imagine that the deceased was very emaciated. This could have made the abdominal opening much tighter to work in to delicately remove the pelvic organs. The organs would have been covered in blood and probably faeces and make it difficult to see where to cut and handle the organs. The organs do not bleed but they ooze blood, and faeces would also have come out of the cut sections of the bowels. I also note that the original reports show that when the body was discovered both her legs were drawn up, indicating this is how the killer left the body. With the legs in those positions it would have been a hindrance to the killer in attempting to remove the organs. The normal position would be to have both legs flat and open to give free and unrestricted access to the abdomen.