0:15

Pushkin. It's

0:22

one am and Louis deem Shuts,

0:24

a jewelry seller, is on his way

0:26

home in his horse and cart. He

0:29

can barely see his way through the dark. As

0:31

he turns off the street, his

0:34

pony shied at something which was lying

0:36

in a heap in a corner of the yard. Newspaper

0:39

reports say that deem Shuts assumed that

0:41

a passed out, drunk or homeless person

0:44

was blocking the way and scaring his horse.

0:47

He looked more closely into the matter and

0:49

then found a woman lying on the ground,

0:52

dead, with her throat cut clean

0:54

to the vertebrae. The body was quite

0:56

warm and blood was still flowing

0:58

freely from the throat. Elizabeth's

1:01

Stride has died recently. It seems

1:04

curiously, her injuries differ

1:06

from those of the rippers previous victims.

1:09

While Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman suffered

1:11

abdominal mutilation as well

1:14

as slash wounds to their throats, Elizabeth

1:17

was killed by a single cut. Few

1:20

expressed doubt, however, that

1:22

Jack the Ripper is to blame. Elizabeth's

1:25

death prompts myriad eyewitness

1:27

accounts. Whitechapel locals report

1:30

where Elizabeth went before she died, and

1:32

with whom they described the men

1:34

she had met, and a picture of

1:37

a suspect emerges. Jack

1:39

the Ripper now has a face.

1:43

These descriptions will shape the case

1:45

for decades to come. But

1:48

did any of these eyewitnesses actually

1:51

see Elizabeth's stride that night, let

1:53

alone her murderer. I'm

2:00

Hallie Rubinholt, you're listening

2:03

to bad women. The Ripper retold

2:06

a series about the real lives of

2:08

the been killed by Jack the Ripper and

2:11

how we got their stories so

2:13

wrong. One

2:18

side, money plenty

2:22

and friends too by

2:25

the sky. Then

2:28

fortune smild upon

2:31

me. I now

2:33

one pass my dome.

2:40

Aloney, I'm

2:43

not with her, seems

2:50

to larn me. I'm

2:52

come for me for rockcount

3:05

Elizabeth strides early life took

3:07

her from Brual Sweden, were prisoned

3:09

like syphilis hospital. She

3:12

came to London, married a carpenter

3:15

and ran two coffee houses, both

3:17

of which failed and closed.

3:19

Then she became a fraudster, hoodwinking

3:22

Londoners with tales of family tragedy.

3:26

We left her in September eighteen eighty

3:28

eight. Elizabeth's

3:31

final day began like any other. She

3:34

cleaned rooms at a Whitechapel lodging house,

3:36

earning a meager sixpence wage about

3:39

ten dollars today, and then

3:41

she went to the pub for a drink. The

3:45

lodging house manager noted that Elizabeth

3:47

wore neither a coat nor a

3:49

bonnet, a detail that some have pounced

3:52

upon as proof that she'd returned to selling

3:54

sex, as she had done briefly

3:56

in her native Sweden. Women

3:58

out soliciting which surely tried to

4:00

show off their faces and bodies as much

4:03

as possible. Of course, wearing

4:05

a hat was equally argued to be the sign

4:07

of a prostitute. Remember the conclusions

4:10

drawn about Polly Nichols in her jolly

4:12

bonnet. If Elizabeth

4:14

Stride was still selling sex,

4:17

she didn't have much lucks listing clients.

4:19

She walked back to her lodging house alone

4:22

at around six thirty pm. Only

4:25

a handful of facts are known about what she

4:28

did in the hours before her death. She

4:30

ate some potatoes, bread and cheese.

4:33

She likely had a few drinks as well. At

4:36

some stage in the evening she acquired

4:38

a corsage, a single red

4:40

rose tied together with some maidenhair

4:43

fern, which she attached to the bodice

4:45

of her dress. Elizabeth asked

4:47

a friend to mind a length of green velvet

4:50

she had in her possession. She was about

4:52

to go out for several hours, and perhaps

4:54

she wanted to make sure that no one stole

4:57

and pond it before she stepped

4:59

out the door again. She sought to smarten herself

5:02

up, borrowing a brush to clean

5:04

the muck from her only set of clothes.

5:08

Just as the newspaper reports and Polly

5:10

Nichols and Annie Chapman's last movements

5:12

are riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies,

5:15

the same is true for Elizabeth. Some

5:18

say she had paid for her bed at the lodging

5:20

house that night in advance with that

5:22

sixpence she'd earned. Others

5:24

state the opposite. If she had

5:27

indeed already paid, it would

5:29

suggest that her intention was to return to

5:31

the lodging house later that evening, but

5:33

where she planned to go when she stepped out

5:35

that night is unknown. Elizabeth

5:38

avoided telling her neighbors about her current

5:41

or past life. No one

5:43

knew her typical habits, regular companions,

5:46

or usual haunts. Perhaps

5:48

she went out to socialize or to meet

5:50

someone. She may have left

5:52

her lodging house with the intention of soliciting,

5:55

or of finding a long term partner, or

5:58

both. Whatever Elizabeth's

6:00

planned that night, she never

6:02

returned. According

6:07

to the coverage of the autopsy, there

6:09

was a clear cut incision on the neck.

6:12

It was six inches in length and

6:14

commenced two and a half inches in

6:16

a straight line below the angle of the

6:18

jaw. The obvious inference,

6:21

said one newspaper, was that

6:23

this was the work of Jack

6:25

the Ripper. The thing is,

6:28

the darts just don't join up that easily.

6:31

Elizabeth was killed with a single cut,

6:33

and her body wasn't otherwise mutilated.

6:36

Her injuries were therefore quite

6:39

unlike those of Polly Nichols and Annie

6:41

Chapman. She was also killed

6:43

near a busy men's club, whereas

6:45

Polly and Annie were murdered in quiet

6:48

places with fewer passers

6:50

by. I have

6:52

strong doubts about whether Elizabeth Stride

6:54

was a victim of the Ripper at all. The

6:57

traditional narrative claims that the killer

6:59

was disturbed before he could carry out

7:01

his trademark butchery. It

7:03

further maintains that, with his blood lust

7:06

unsated, he dashed across

7:08

Whitechapel in search of another woman

7:10

to murder. That very same night,

7:13

but that's a story for another episode.

7:16

This all strikes me as a bit far fetched.

7:20

Elizabeth could have fallen prey to some other unknown

7:22

attacker, a victim of one of her fraudulent

7:25

tricks. Perhaps it's even

7:27

possible that she was killed by her partner, Michael

7:29

Kidney, who was known to be physically abusive.

7:33

Nevertheless, Elizabeth Stride is

7:35

still counted among the five victims,

7:37

perhaps because her death adds so much

7:40

color to the Ripper myth. It

7:42

was only with Elizabeth Stride's death that

7:44

I witnesses began to come forward to

7:47

report actual sightings of a

7:49

suspect. For

7:52

example, a laborer saw

7:55

a man and a woman in close conference

7:57

just before midnight on the street

7:59

where Elizabeth was killed. He

8:01

believed that woman was Elizabeth's

8:03

Stride. I was standing at

8:05

my door, and what attracted my attention

8:08

first was standing there sometime

8:10

and he was kissing her. I heard the man say

8:12

to the deceased, you would say anything but

8:14

your prayers. He was mild speaking

8:17

and appeared to be an educated man. Not

8:20

long after that, Israel Schwartz,

8:22

who gave a statement through an interpreter, noticed

8:25

a man and a woman having a disagreement

8:27

on the same street. Their

8:29

argument became increasingly heated.

8:35

The woman was thrown to the ground, letting

8:38

out a scream. Schwartz

8:42

was then startled by a second man who

8:44

had been standing in the shadows. Feeling

8:47

menaced by this figure and unwilling

8:49

to intervene in some kind of domestic

8:51

dispute, he took to his heels and

8:53

fled. Other neighbors

8:55

chimed in two. One woman saw

8:57

a young man with a black, shiny bag

9:00

who walked very fast, but

9:02

had it noticed anything else unusual.

9:04

That night, and in the daily

9:07

news, a man named Albert asked

9:09

recalled a conversation with a suspicious

9:12

stranger. He asked me questions

9:14

which now appeared to me to have some bearing

9:17

upon the recent murders. He wanted

9:19

to know whether I knew what sort of loose

9:21

women use the public bar at their house,

9:23

when they usually left the street outside,

9:26

and where they were in the abbit of going. He

9:28

asked further questions, and from his manner,

9:30

seemed up to no good purpose. He

9:32

appeared to be a shabby, genteel

9:35

sort of man, and was dressed in black clothes.

9:38

He wore a black felt hat and

9:40

carried a black bag. Such

9:42

descriptions are the bedrock of most

9:45

Ripper theories. The trouble is

9:47

none of these eyewitness statements have

9:49

ever been submitted to real scrutiny.

9:52

Under close examination, they don't

9:54

hold up well at all. The

9:59

Ripper he told will be back In a moment, from

10:06

the cacophony of witnesses, a

10:08

portrait of Elizabeth Stride's killer began

10:11

to take shape. The following

10:13

description has been circulated of a

10:15

man said to have been seen in the company of the

10:17

deceased during Saturday, age

10:19

twenty eight slight height, five

10:22

feet nine inches, complexion dark,

10:24

no whiskers, black diagonal coat,

10:27

hard felt hat collar. It's

10:29

not much to go on an average

10:31

size Victorian man who was neither very

10:33

old nor very young in average

10:36

Victorian dress. Still,

10:38

over the years, these statements, no matter

10:40

how vague, have crystallized into

10:43

the supposed facts of the case. Every

10:46

Ripper book or documentary you've seen

10:48

will build on these shaky foundations.

10:52

There was at least one, maybe two copycats

10:55

involved in these five murders.

10:57

Take Jeff Mudget, a descendant of

10:59

Herman Mudget, who was also known

11:01

as H. H. Holmes. That's

11:03

pretty much where my theory has

11:06

gone okay, and I know

11:08

a lot of people disagree with that. A

11:10

notorious American swindler and

11:13

serial killer Holmes trapped his victims

11:15

and what became known as his murder

11:17

Castle, a Chicago house

11:20

he built to include soundproof

11:22

chambers and shoots to

11:24

move body parts for disposal. I

11:27

put some research into this

11:30

evil man and became somewhat

11:33

obsessed with knowing the true story

11:35

about him. Holmes lived

11:38

and killed in Chicago, but

11:40

Jeff is convinced that he also

11:42

crossed the Atlantic to satisfy his

11:45

murderous impulses, that

11:47

he was also shack the Ripper.

11:50

The more I dug in, the more the

11:52

angle started lessoning, and

11:54

the chances became greater and

11:56

greater. Jeff has gathered evidence

11:59

about handwriting and passenger lists.

12:01

We've done quite a bit of research into

12:03

passenger lists on liners

12:06

from New York to London Southampton,

12:08

and we found some of

12:10

the aliases that Holmes used.

12:13

He also thinks physical descriptions link

12:15

Holmes and the man scene with Elizabeth Stride.

12:18

Both were of average height and mustachioed,

12:21

as was the fashion of the day. Jeff

12:23

actually thinks that Holmes didn't kill

12:25

all the women. His theory is elaborate

12:28

and seems to suggest that H. H. Holmes

12:30

was a copycat killer drawn to London

12:32

after the earlier murders. He

12:35

gave a ted X talk where he presented

12:37

his evidence, making much of a computer

12:40

image, a facial composite

12:42

based on the statements of eye witnesses that

12:44

was produced by Scotland yard analysts

12:46

for yet another TV show. Noticed

12:49

the bridge of the nose, Notice the shape of the

12:51

eyes, Notice the years, Notice

12:53

the cheek bons. He compares it to a

12:55

photo of HH Holmes. Just

12:58

take a second to look once again the nose

13:00

Holmes had a broken nose, the eyes,

13:03

the years, and again the cheek bons. Jeff,

13:06

who incidentally is a lawyer by

13:08

trade, show both of these images

13:10

to two seasoned investigators,

13:13

one from the FBI. Both said

13:15

the comparison was the closest

13:17

they'd ever seen in their entire careers.

13:20

Jeff calls all this a remarkable

13:22

piece of evidence, although many

13:24

of the people that criticized me for using

13:27

that thought it looked more like Freddie Mercury

13:29

than it did H. Holmes. Jeff's

13:32

theory is frankly baffling,

13:34

and I had a bit of trouble following the logic.

13:36

During our conversation, it seemed

13:39

to contain gaping holes and great

13:41

leaps of imagination. I was

13:43

surprised that someone with legal training

13:46

would entertain this story for a second. Would

13:48

I be confident proving

13:50

that Holmes was Jack the Ripper

13:53

and a court of log beyond a reasonable

13:55

doubt. Now now, off

13:57

the back of his ted X talk, Jeff

14:00

made a TV show, American Ripper,

14:02

where he teamed up with former CIA

14:05

agent Amaryllis Fox in

14:07

an effort to prove once and for all that

14:09

his great great grandfather was

14:11

Jack the Ripper. I've talked

14:13

to experts and historians and combed through

14:16

libraries and archives searching

14:18

for the truth, and I believe

14:20

that by assuming the identity of Jack

14:22

the Ripper, HH Holmes pulled off

14:24

one of the greatest cons of all time. That

14:28

show has been seen all over the

14:31

world. In fact, it was on British

14:33

TV again the very day I interviewed

14:35

him. The Ripper's final

14:38

victim is played like a piece of

14:40

meat. It makes me wonder

14:42

how Holmes was conducting dissections

14:44

and the basement of the Murder Castle in

14:46

the years following The Ripper killings are

14:49

you aware of any? Viewers are

14:51

served up theories like this all

14:53

the time. The same cast of former

14:56

detectives, handwritting experts and

14:58

police artists are wheeled out to

15:00

explain the evidence and solve the crime.

15:03

The issue here is that not all

15:06

evidence is equal. It has to be scrutinized

15:09

and weighed up. I'd argue that

15:11

little cited as evidence in the Ripper

15:13

case would actually stand up in

15:15

court. The idea behind the due

15:17

process is that obviously we have these safeguards

15:19

in place that ultimately those who should be convicted

15:22

or convicted and where there's doubt they're acquitted.

15:25

Ed Connell knows all about the problems that evidence

15:27

can pose. He's a judge in the UK,

15:30

presiding over criminal cases, and he

15:32

previously spent twenty three years as

15:34

a trial lawyer. Eyewitness statements,

15:36

he says, are notoriously thorny.

15:39

Visual identification has been

15:42

one of the real problems that the criminal justice

15:44

system has faced. It's one of the main causes

15:46

of injustice. In eighteen

15:48

ninety five, a man named Adolf Beck

15:51

was accused of swindling women in London.

15:54

He'd approached them on the street, claiming

15:56

to be an aristocrat and promising

15:58

to whisk them away to his luxury

16:01

yacht and lavish them with jewelry.

16:03

In fact, why not give me that old

16:06

ring so I can have a new one made in exactly

16:08

the right size for you. Beck

16:11

was spotted leaving home by one of the women.

16:13

That's him a rest back man. Several

16:16

victims and other eyewitnesses also

16:18

identified him as the con man, and he

16:20

was sent to prison. The

16:24

problem was Beck was

16:26

living in South America when these crimes

16:28

took place. It was only years

16:30

later that the real culprit was caught

16:32

and Beck was freed. The case

16:34

prompted the creation of the UK's Court

16:37

of Appeal. Today, we

16:39

issue guidelines about witness testimony

16:42

precisely to avoid the kind of issues

16:44

that consigned ad Off Beck to years

16:46

in prison for someone else's

16:48

crimes. A judge will say to the

16:50

jury members of jury, they have

16:53

in the past being miscarriager's justice. We have

16:55

to be very careful. People who appeared

16:57

to be compelling can be wrong. Honest

17:00

people can be wrong. Lots of

17:02

honest people can be wrong. Mistakes are

17:04

made, juries are often worn. To

17:06

accept eyewitness statements with caution.

17:09

What distance were they viewing the person from, was

17:11

there anything in their way? What was the

17:13

weather like, what was the lighting like? How

17:16

long has there been from when they saw the

17:18

persons or when they perhaps subsequently identified

17:20

them. Ed's examined some of the witness

17:22

statements in elizabeth Strides case, and

17:25

he says they contain inherent

17:27

weaknesses, so it's difficult to really

17:29

draw any conclusions from

17:31

what these people are said. It's difficult to see how anybody

17:34

could go away having read

17:36

these statements and be sure

17:38

of what's contained within them. One should take

17:41

great care and caution before being

17:43

able to say, yes, actually, any of this stuff

17:45

is fact. We can rely upon the

17:49

ripper were told we'll be back in

17:51

just a moment. Looking

17:59

at, for example, the statement of William Marshall, it's

18:02

a very limited use to you at all.

18:05

William Marshall was a laborer. He

18:07

believed he saw Elizabeth's stride the

18:09

night she died, in quiet discussion with

18:11

a man. Marshall thought

18:14

he heard the man with Elizabeth tell her

18:16

you would say anything but your prayers. Marshall

18:19

later went to identify Elizabeth's body

18:22

and confirmed that this was indeed

18:24

the same woman he had seen on the Street, he

18:27

gave evidence at the coroner's inquest. I

18:30

recognize it as that of a woman I saw on Saturday

18:32

evening, about three doors off from where I'm

18:34

living in Berni Street. I recognize

18:37

her both by her face and dress, while

18:39

she wearing a flower when you saw her. No,

18:44

it is wary of Marshall's testimony.

18:47

Marshall didn't actually know Elizabeth,

18:49

and how much real attention would he have paid

18:52

to a couple he just saw on the street, Probably

18:54

not enough for a detailed picture of

18:56

them to lodge in his memory. He

18:58

gives a very limited description

19:01

as to what she was wearing. He says

19:03

black jacket and black skirt, which

19:06

I imagine was not particularly unique.

19:08

And the other piece of him for mation is that he

19:10

says that she was wearing a small black

19:12

crape bonnet, which again I suspect is probably

19:14

not a particularly distinguishing feature. Curiously,

19:17

Marshall didn't see the corsage that Elizabeth

19:19

had attached to her dress. He

19:22

told the coroner that the woman he saw

19:24

wasn't wearing a flower. On

19:26

the other hand, a police inspector who took

19:29

a description of Elizabeth at the Moutree

19:31

noted that She had a red rose

19:34

tied with maidenhair fern fastened

19:36

to her clothing. Again a sort

19:38

of feature that an observant witness who could

19:40

be deemed reliable would have spotted.

19:43

Even if this woman was Elizabeth's

19:45

stride, Marshall couldn't have had a

19:47

great view of the pair. For one

19:49

thing, he was watching them from a distance.

19:52

Can you describe the man? There

19:54

was no lamp near, and I did not see the face

19:57

of the man she was talking to. He had

19:59

on a small black coat and dark trousers.

20:01

Seemed to be a middle aged man. What

20:03

sort of cap was he wearing? A

20:06

round cap with a sort of peak to it, something

20:08

like what a sailor would wear. It's

20:11

happening late at night, so it's

20:13

dark. He makes reference to there being

20:16

a light, but of course they would have been

20:18

passing under the light. He describes that the male

20:20

person had a brimmed cap on, so that would

20:22

have cast the face into darkness. What

20:25

height was he? About five

20:27

ft six inches and he was rather

20:29

stout. He was decently dressed,

20:31

and I should say he worked at some light business

20:33

and had more the appearance of a clerk than anything

20:36

else. He

20:38

gives a description of a man

20:41

wearing a small black coat, dark

20:43

trousers. Again not unique.

20:45

I wouldn't have thought for the time, middle aged

20:48

and about five foot six and rather

20:50

stout. It's not particularly sort

20:52

of distinctive description that would only match

20:54

maybe two or three people. It mats hundreds

20:56

of thousands of people at that time. So

20:59

again that sort of cast some doubt

21:01

over whether or not he could be relied upon

21:03

his identification witness. But more important than

21:05

that, there is actually no visual identification

21:08

of the person because he doesn't

21:10

see the face. And then the coroner asked

21:12

a question latron or did he have any whiskers? And

21:15

his response was born from what I saw of his face. I

21:17

don't think he did. But he's already told them

21:19

that he hadn't seen the face. So his identification

21:21

evidence is just really, it seemed to

21:24

me inherently weak. Here Edie

21:26

is convinced that William Marshall wouldn't

21:28

be able to pick this suspect out of a lineup.

21:31

A modern standard for reliable

21:33

identification by witnesses. The

21:35

whole idea of identification procedures. You arrange

21:38

eleven stooges that look very

21:40

similar facially to the individual and then

21:42

you hope that the witness then picks the person out. But

21:44

this witness, mister Marshall, seems wouldn't

21:47

have even been able to do that at all. So

21:49

you're really left with a broad

21:52

description of types of clothing

21:54

of very limited value. Should we

21:56

also ask questions of this witness

21:58

such as why was he awake

22:01

at that time of night? What was he doing? Was

22:03

he drinking? Perhaps? Absolutely?

22:05

I mean that's one of the things you often would

22:07

ask a witness when they're identified

22:09

someone involved perhaps in a pub fight, for example,

22:11

at eleven o'clock at night, because it's a very good

22:13

chance that they will have been drinking. It's

22:16

also worth remembering where the abundance

22:18

of eyewitness accounts on Elizabeth Strides

22:20

case came from. In the first place. Panic

22:23

was gripping Whitechapel. These murders

22:25

were all over the newspapers. It's

22:28

unsurprising that people would then come for and

22:30

say, oh, yeah, no, I think you know, I might have seen that

22:32

night as well. And of course they then want to believe

22:34

that they're right about it, and no one's going

22:36

to then go and look at the body and say, oh no, I'm

22:39

sorry, I'm wrong. I've made a terrible mistake.

22:41

They're going to want to insist that they've got it all right.

22:44

Marshall's evidence wouldn't clear the bar for reliability

22:46

that we said today. His is just one

22:49

example of witness testimony from Elizabeth

22:51

Stride's murder, but it shows us

22:53

that there are pitfalls when we take what

22:56

people thought they saw in Whitechapel

22:58

that night and on the nights of the other

23:00

murders and portray them as facts.

23:03

Because there was never a trial, accounts

23:05

like Marshall's were never discredited.

23:08

Instead, they're out there in the ether

23:11

ripe to form the foundations for House

23:13

of Card theories, like Jeff Mudget's

23:16

thesis that is great great Groundfather sailed

23:18

across the Atlantic to join the Jack the Ripper

23:20

killing spree. The advantage of people have now

23:23

looking back with the passage of time is that you can

23:25

pretty much put a spin on anything you want to your

23:27

advantage, because there's such limited information

23:29

for you to tear and say, well, no, you've got that completely

23:31

wrong. We're all just stuck with the minimum information

23:34

we've really got from the coroner reports and what was reported

23:36

at the time. Perhaps this is why

23:38

I'm viewed with such animosity by ripparologists.

23:41

As a professional historian, I hunt

23:44

for evidence, stress test the facts

23:46

that I find, and cross reference them with other

23:48

available sources. Ripparologists

23:51

cherry pick, attaching huge

23:53

importance to whatever supports their theories

23:56

and ignoring what's inconvenient. All

23:59

this reminds me of how conspiracy

24:01

theories work. They too, are

24:03

detailed narratives built around scant

24:06

and disputed facts. It's

24:08

no coincident, but the Whitechapel

24:10

murders spawned many crackpot

24:12

conspiracy theories, with Freemasons,

24:15

Jews, and Royalty all being implicated

24:17

in plots to cover up the murderer's true

24:20

identity. I

24:22

find this aspect of the Ripper case especially

24:24

maddening. It's bad enough that some

24:27

people ignore the victims and spend an

24:29

inordinate amount of time almost glorifying

24:32

the killer's deeds, but to abuse

24:34

the historical records so casually in

24:36

the process infuriates

24:38

me. Further Still, it

24:40

turns the grisly murders of real women

24:43

into a silly who done it? Game. The

24:47

megastar crime writer Patricia Cornwell,

24:50

creator of the famous Scott Heatter novels,

24:52

also has a very detailed theory Patricia

24:55

links Victorian artist Walter Sickett

24:57

to the Whitechapel murders. I've

24:59

been reading up on her work and I feel

25:02

it's no more plausible than chefs.

25:04

There's no statute of limitation on harmicide,

25:06

and just because these cases have had

25:09

her in fourteen years ago, the victims have a

25:11

right to justice. My mind

25:13

went back to her documentary, Patricia

25:15

Cornwell's Stalking the Ripper. Patricia

25:18

is clearly a thoughtful and talented

25:20

person who speaks passionately about

25:22

wanting to bring justice to the murdered women.

25:25

But I cannot understand the path she has

25:27

followed, and I fear she's falling into the

25:29

same trap as the most zealous ripparologists.

25:32

I genuinely want to understand what's

25:34

driving her, but getting in touch

25:36

with Patricia was proving more difficult

25:38

than I had anticipated. I write

25:41

my agent, Sarah, hoping she might have

25:43

some ideas. I mean, this is like contacting

25:45

a superstar. Really, I'm not quite sure

25:47

how I'm going to manage to help

25:49

you with this. What are we dealing with it? I mean,

25:53

Patricia Cornwell is like a kind of force

25:55

of nature. How big is she? I've

25:58

never met her, myself, but she does.

26:00

Her reputation really precedes her. She is

26:02

a sort of action woman of the

26:04

literally world. And that first case Scarpettiitt

26:07

was the first bonfidi forensics thriller,

26:09

which is extraordinary when you think about it. I mean

26:11

the CSI Dexter. You can't

26:13

turn on the telly without tripping over something,

26:16

which is all about forensic detail, and

26:18

she predated all of that. She started writing

26:20

those books at a time where there wasn't really any

26:22

interest in that. Sarah said

26:24

that she would reach out to Patricia's US agent

26:26

for me. I was keeping everything crossed.

26:29

Interestingly, she also thought that

26:32

Patricia and I might have more in common than

26:34

I'd imagined. She's very interested

26:36

in victimhood. Her books

26:38

are all about finding justice for

26:40

people who've had terrible

26:42

things done to them. Patricia's

26:45

Walter Sickett theory, like the prostitute

26:47

killer theory, wrests on simplistic

26:49

ideas of misogyny and sexual

26:52

deviance. Patricia contends that

26:54

as a child, Sickert underwent surgery

26:56

to correct a fisture on his penis.

26:59

The operation was botched, leaving him disfigured

27:01

and impotent. As a result, says

27:04

Patricia, he raged against

27:06

women. None

27:08

of this theory ry screams interest in

27:10

the victims to me, certainly,

27:12

not in who they were before their murders,

27:15

or in the lives that they led, or the forces

27:17

that put them into the killer's path. I

27:20

genuinely want to understand why people

27:22

invest so much time, money,

27:25

and emotional energy into thinking

27:27

about Jack the Ripper. Maybe

27:29

Patricia can articulate that for me, and

27:32

maybe I can convince her to focus less

27:34

on the psychology of a killer will never catch

27:37

and more on the women that he murdered. Maybe

27:40

I can convince her to finally

27:42

call off the hunt. Bad

27:56

Women the Ripper Were Told is brought to you by Pushkin

27:59

Industries and Me Hallie Ribbinhold,

28:01

and is based on my book The Five. It

28:04

was produced and co written by Ryan Dilley and

28:06

Alice Fines, with help from Pete Norton.

28:09

Pascal Wise Sound designed and mixed the

28:11

show and composed all the original music.

28:14

You also heard the voice talents of Soul Boyer,

28:17

Melanie Gutridge, Gemma Saunders,

28:19

and rufus Wright. The show

28:21

also wouldn't have been possible without the work

28:23

of mil LaBelle, Jacob Weisberg,

28:25

Jen Guerra, Heather Fane, Carlie

28:28

Migliori, Maggie Taylor, Nicole

28:30

Morano and Daniella Lacan

28:33

were special thanks to my agents Sarah

28:35

Ballard and Ellie Karen