by Ray Black
Unfortunately Chikatilo’s blood group did not match that found at the crime scenes. Also the police made the mistake of returning the suitcase to Andrei who swiftly disposed of their contents. With no evidence the police could only charge Andrei with the theft and although he was charged with one years imprisonment, he was freed in December 1984 after serving only three months.
After his release Chikatilo found new work in Novocherkassk as a travelling buyer for a locomotive company, and managed to maintain a low profile. Whether his prison sentence had any initial effect on him is hard to say, but he did not kill again until August 1985, when he murdered two women in separate incidents. His killings then stopped until May 1987 when he murdered a thirteen-year-old boy in Revka up in the Ural mountains.
OUT OF CONTROL
From then on his killing spree seemed to spiral out of control. In 1988 he killed a further eight people and, in 1990, which was to be his last year of freedom, he killed another nine, most of whom were young boys. By now Issa Kostoyev, the director of the Central Department for Violent Crime, had taken over the investigations, and he started going over all the evidence very carefully. When the body of sixteen-year-old Vadim Tishchenko was discovered on November 3, 1990, Kostoyev decided to put out night patrols who were equipped with night vision goggles.
However, even with all the extra police on patrol, they were unable to prevent Chikatilo from killing his final victim, twenty-two-year-old Svetlana Korostik, on November 6 at Donleskhoz Station. This time he cut off parts of the girl’s body and ate them at the scene before finally covering the body with leaves and branches and walking back to the station. A plain clothes officer at the station noticed Chikatilo perspiring heavily and that he had spots of blood on his face. He checked his papers, but unaware that there had been another murder, had no real reason to apprehend the man and Andrei was allowed to go on his way.
After the discovery of Svetlana’s body, Kostoyev decided to look further into the report of the incident. When his research showed that Chikatilo was recorded as having been in the vicinity at the time of many of the murders, Kostoyev decided to use a team of undercover agents to follow him.
On November 20, 1990, Chikatilo left work so that he could get treatment for a broken finger which, unbeknown to the doctors, had been bitten by one of his victims. Following the treatment he picked up his briefcase and went on the hunt for young boys. The first boy he approached was called away by his mother and a little frustrated at having his plans foiled, carried on further down the street to look for another victim. This time, however, he was approached by three men who identified themselves as policemen, who subsequently arrested him. Once again a search of the briefcase revealed that it contained a jar of lubricant, a length of rope and a knife. When they searched his home they found a further twenty-three knives, a hammer and a pair of shoes that matched a footprint that had been found at one of the murder scenes. Andrei himself was searched and there was a cut on his finger, and his genitals had abrasions on them.
A leading Russian psychologist, Dr Bukhanovsky was called in to interview Andrei. He eventually confessed to all his crimes and told the doctor that he got sexual gratification from murder, torture and mutilation, and even confessed to cannibalism on some occasions. Chikatilo admitted to at least 53 murders but also led police to some undiscovered victims.
THE TRIAL IN A CAGE
The trial started on April 14, 1992, and to protect him from his victims’ relatives, Chikatilo was placed in a large iron cage where he was allowed to either sit or stand. During the trial Andrei spent a lot of his time ranting and raving and acting outlandishly. It is not clear whether this was all an act to try and persuade the judge that he was totally insane, or whether his mental condition had actually deteriorated to that extent. At one point he pulled down his trousers, waved his penis at the public gallery insisting that he was not a homosexual and shouting: ‘Look at this useless thing, what do you think I could do with that?’ He was removed from the courtroom.
The trial carried on into August 1992. Chikatilo was given a final opportunity to stand up and speak for himself, but on this occasion he remained silent. It took the judge two whole months to reach a verdict and, on October 14, six months after the trial began, he pronounced Andrei Chikatilo guilty of five counts of molestation and 52 counts of murder. On hearing the sentence, Andrei started shouting incoherently, spitting at the judge and demanding that he see his corpses. Despite his outlandish behaviour Chikatilo was pronounced legally sane and was sentenced to die by execution.
A last-minute appeal for clemency was rejected by President Boris Yeltsin and on February 15, 1994, Chikatilo was taken to a special soundproof room and was executed with a pistol shot to the back of his head. Unlike the pain and suffering he subjected on his victims, Andrei Chikatilo died quickly and mercifully.
Who Was ‘Jack The Ripper’?
In 1888 a mysterious monster stalked the streets of London’s East End killing women. The killer was never caught and, for this reason, there are many many theories on his personality and his motives.
Between the months of August and November, 1888, the Whitechapel area of East London was plagued with a series of horrific murders, which to this day remain unsolved. The assailant, originally known as ‘Leather Apron’, stalked the dimly-lit, fog-ridden streets of the East End of London with a single, gruesome ambition . . . to murder in the most foul way. Why was this mysterious figure that was shrouded in a cape, armed with a long knife and black Gladstone bag, never apprehended. That will always remain an unanswered question and that is probably why the name of ‘Jack the Ripper’ is still so famous this century as it was in 1888.
The ‘Ripper’ as we will call him in this story, seemed to confine his attacks on poor women, who were forced to rely on prostitution as their only means of income. All his attacks occurred after dark and, with the exception of his last victim, they all lived in close proximity to the East End of London.
In Victorian England the East End of London was somewhat of an outcast from the main city. It was occupied by around 900,000 people and the streets were filthy, covered in rubbish and the liquid sewage gave the area an awful stench. Most of the inhabitants of the East End lived in deplorable conditions. They were either working for a pittance of a wage, did not work at all, or ended up as criminals in an effort to just survive. Prostitution was one of the only reliable means by which a single woman or widow could maintain themselves and it was estimated that around 1888 there were as many as 1,200 prostitutes in the Whitechapel district alone.
The squalid tenements, narrow, darkened alleys and streets of this area of London, was the perfect place for the Whitechapel murderer to carry out his gruesome crimes.
THE VICTIMS
Mary Ann Nichols, was forty-two years old and was the daughter of a locksmith. Polly, as she became known, was married to William Nichols, a printer’s machinist and they had five children. Her marriage broke up due to her heavy drinking, and Polly was now living off her meagre earnings that she received from being a prostitute. She did not manage to overcome her drinking problem, but from time to time she did try and get her life in some sort of order. Although she was a sad, piteous woman, she was liked by everyone that knew her.
It was in the early hours of Friday, August 31, 1888, that Charles Cross came across the body of a woman lying on her back, with her skirts lifted up above her waist. He called over a fellow passer-by to assist him, assuming that the woman was merely a drunk who had fallen asleep, or maybe she had been the victim of an attack. However, as they tried to help the woman they suddenly realised that she had in fact been murdered, and that the awful wounds to her neck had almost decapitated her. To try and retain a modicum of dignity they pulled the woman’s skirt down and then went off in the search of a policeman.
Shortly after the two men left, Police Constable Neill, came across the body of a woman lying on the footpath. On stooping down to help her up, assuming that she was in a dru
nken sleep, he noticed with horror that her throat had been cut almost from ear to ear. He called back to his station and asked that they send out a doctor to Buck’s Row. Doctor Llewellyn inspected the body and pronounced that the poor woman was dead and proceeded to carry out a brief examination in the place where she lay. He discovered that, apart from the severe gash across her throat, she had also received terrible stab wounds to her abdomen. When the police ambulance arrived, her body was removed and taken back to the mortuary for further examination.
It was at the mortuary that they truly realised the horror of the crime that had been committed. The police realised that it was going to be difficult to obtain identification of the victim, as the only possessions she had on her was a comb, a broken mirror and a handkerchief. The clothing was inexpensive and well-worn and bore no identifying marks other than the Lambeth Workhouse on her petticoats. She was around five feet two inches tall, with brown-grey hair, brown eyes and several of her front teeth were missing.
As the news spread around Whitechapel they learned that the woman affectionately known as ‘Polly’ was in fact Mary Ann Nichols, who lived in a lodging house at 18 Thawl Street. She was identified first by a woman from the workhouse, and the next day by both her father and her husband.
Whoever had viciously murdered Polly Nichols had left no clues whatsoever at the scene of the crime. None of the other residents in the neighbourhood had seen or heard anything unusual, and no-one had been seen running away from the body. The people of Whitechapel had already been warned that there had been several other attacks in the area and they, particularly the prostitutes, were becoming rather wary. Several weeks before the murder of Polly, on Monday, August 6, thirty-nine-year-old Martha Tabram, also a prostitute, had been found murdered in George Yard. She had been stabbed thirty-nine times on her body, neck and private parts with what they thought was possibly a knife or a dagger.
The attacks were not linked to the murder of Polly Nicholls as the nature of the wounds inflicted on these people were quite different and the motive was probably robbery, but there were similarities in the Tabram case.
The attacks and two murders had left the East End of London in a state of shock and there was now a lot of pressure on the police to apprehend the assailant. There were many theories being banded around, but the main three were: (1) that it was a gang of thieves, (2) that it was a gang extorting money from prostitutes and they were penalizing the women for not paying and, finally (3) that a maniac was on the loose. Considering how poor the the victims were, the first two theories were considered to be not very plausible.
While the police were busy trying to prove their theories a story surfaced in the press about a bizarre character named ‘Leather Apron’. He was claimed by The Star to be a Jewish slipper maker who was going around beating up prostitutes who would not pay him money. However, with all the publicity and the threat of mob violence, the ‘Leather Apron’ went into hiding.
ANNIE CHAPMAN
Annie Chapman or ‘Dark Annie’ as she was affectionately known, met her demise on the foggy night of September 8, 1888. She was a pathetic woman, who was homeless and wandered around the streets of the East end earnestly searching for clients to earn her enough money to buy food, drink and shelter for the night. She was very undernourished and was suffering from a terminal lung and brain disease. It was the death of her husband, John Chapman, that had left poor Annie penniless. She had had three children with John, one of whom had died from meningitis and another was a cripple. Annie suffered from severe depression and alcoholism and just before 2 a.m. she was turned out of her lodging house to earn some money to pay for her bed. Later that same morning, her body was discovered in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street in Spitalfields.
The Spitalfields Market opened at 5 a.m. and the surrounding streets were busy with people and commercial vehicles. Annie’s body was found by an elderly man named John Davis. He saw that her skirts had been pulled up above her waist and went immediately to get help.
The amazing thing about this case it that the killer took the risk and committed his crime in daylight. Amazingly though, even though the streets were crowded, no-one had seen or heard anything suspicious, and again no-one was spotted running away from the crime with blood on his clothes or carrying a weapon. There was also a tap in the backyard where the body was found, and yet the murderer had not bothered to stop and wash the weapon or his hands clean of any blood.
Annie did not appear to have put up any fight and there were a few clues near the body that might help in the apprehension of this ruthless killer. Items that Annie had had in her pocket – a small piece of cloth, a pocket comb and a small-tooth comb – were all found near her body and appeared to arranged in some sort of order. There was also an envelope near her head containing two pills and on the back was written the words Sussex Regiment, and a postmark that said London, Aug. 23m 1888. Finally, a leather apron was found along with some other rubbish in the backyard.
However, the investigation turned out to be just as frustrating as that of the Nichols and Tabram case. The physical clues found at the scene – the leather apron, a nailbox and a piece of steel – turned out to be owned by one of the residents of 29 Hanbury Street, Mrs. Richardson’s son. The envelope was widely sold at a local post office and a man at the lodging house said he saw Annie pick it up off the floor to put her pills in when her pillbox broke. Several witnesses came forward to say that they had seen a man in the backyard of Hanbury Street but could not give any real detail. The main witness though, Mrs. Elizabeth Long, did see a man talking with Annie at around 5.30 a.m. but unfortunately the man had his back to her. She did her best to describe what she saw. But these witnesses gave the police a further problem because the coroner had estimated that Annie Chapman had died no later than 4.30 that Saturday morning, and yet all the evidence pointed to the fact that she died around 5.30.
The recent murders now left the normally busy streets of Whitechapel quiet and virtually deserted by night. The local population were angry with the police for not coming up with any results, and their anger was further fuelled by the rumours and stories that were appearing in the papers. However in a week or so the normal seedy nightlife of Whitechapel was virtually back to normal, as there were just too many people who depended on prostitution in order to just survive.
ELIZABETH STRIDE AND ANOTHER
Elizabeth Stride was born in 1843 in Sweden, and probably came to England as a domestic worker. She moved to London in 1866 and married a carpenter named John Thomas Stride. Stride was a survivor of the Thames River tragedy, but he had died later in the poorhouse. They allegedly kept a coffee shop prior to the breakdown of their marriage in 1882. Elizabeth was known locally as ‘Long Liz’ and over the years she had eight convictions for drunken behaviour. She lived with a labourer named Michael Kidney for three years before her death, and although she may occasionally have prostituted herself, she mainly earned a living by either doing cleaning or sewing work.
Elizabeth’s body was discovered by a Russian Jew by the name of Louis Diemschutz on Sunday, September 30, 1888 in the yard outside the International Working Men’s Education Club where Louis lived with his wife. As he pulled in Dutfield Yard he saw something lying on the ground near the wall of the Club. He struck a match and realised that it was the body of a woman. He rushed into the club and got one of the young members to come out and help him. When the two men took a closer look at the body and saw a pool of blood beneath her, they screamed and then ran to fetch the police. She had the similar injuries to the other murders, whereby her throat had been cut virtually from ear to ear and she had multiple knife wounds to the body.
Meanwhile, the police were dealing with yet another murder in Mitre Square. The square at 1.30 a.m. was quiet and deserted, and Police Constable Edward Watkins was making his routine patrol of the area. However, when he shone his torch into a corner of the square he made a horrible discovery. He found the body of a woman lying on her back with her skirt
pushed up above her waist. Her throat had been cut, and her stomach had been ripped out to reveal her bowels. When the police arrived on the scene the body was still relatively warm and realising that the crime had only been committed a short while before, started a thorough search of the area in the hope that the killer was still about.
There was no money on the body and, once again, no evidence of any struggle. Somehow the murderer had managed to lure his victim silently into the square, carve her up and completely vanish in a very short period of time.
During the search of the square, Constable Alfred Long discovered a piece of apron covered in blood lying in the entrance to a building. Just above where the apron was found, written on an archway in white chalk was the message:
