London, United Kingdom
Sunday, 23 September 1888
ALL OWING TO THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS.
A tall, well dressed woman, wearing a fashionable bonnet and veil, who refused her name and address, was charged with being drunk and disorderly. The prisoner was found asleep in the garden of a house in Park lane, East Greenwich. A constable was called, and the prisoner cried out, "For God's sake lock me up; I don't want to be killed." She behaved in a disorderly manner, and was charged. She now said she came from London to look for her husband, who, she thought, was in the neighbourhood, and went to sleep in the garden. She was afraid she might be murdered like the women in Whitechapel. Mr. Marsham discharged the prisoner.
Annie Gregory, who has been repeatedly charged with drunkenness, was brought up for her old offence. She complained that a man had cut her hand with a knife, and she was afraid of being killed like the Whitechapel women. Mr. Marsham discharged her, and said he would grant a summons against the man who had assaulted her.
THE INQUEST ON MRS. NICHOLLS.
Mr. Wynne E. Baxter (coroner for south east Middlesex) resumed his inquest this week at the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel road, into the circumstances attending the death of Mary Anne Nicholls, who was found murdered in Buck's row, Whitechapel, on the 31st ult.
Dr. Llewellyn said that after he had given his evidence on the previous occasion he visited the mortuary, and made a further examination of the body. He found a scar of old standing on the forehead. He did not believe that any portion of the body was missing.
Emma Green, of New Cottage, Buck's row, said that she was a widow. She occupied the house next to that where the deceased was found. Her daughter and her two sons lived with her. On Thursday, 30th ult., she retired to bed about 11 o'clock. Her daughter went to bed about the same time, but her sons previously. She slept well, and did not remember waking before the police knocked at the door. She would certainly have heard screams had there been any. They often heard noises during the night, and very rough people passed through the street. She did not believe there was a disorderly house in Buck's row.
Thomas Eade, a signalman on the East London Railway, aid that on the 8th inst., at about noon, he was in Cambridge Heath road. When in front of the Foresters' Arms he saw a man walking along the opposite side of the way. There was something peculiar in the man's appearance that attracted his attention. He caught sight of a large knife partly concealed in the man's trousers pocket. Three men stood by, and he called upon them to assist him in arresting this suspicious looking character. One of the men said he was willing to do so, but his two companions refused. The consequence was the man walked on unmolested. He saw that he had attracted the witness's attention and he hurried away, being soon lost to view.
The man had not been arrested. He was about 5ft 8in high, and about 35 years of age. He had a dark moustache and dark whiskers. He wore a low peak cap, a short dark brown jacket, and a pair of light overalls over a pair of dark trousers. The man walked as though he had a stiff knee. He was apparently a mechanic. The overalls were perfectly clean. He was not a muscular or stout man.
Walter Purkiss said he lived at Essex wharf, Buck's row, where he was the manager. The wharf was nearly opposite the spot where the deceased was found. Only he and his wife slept in the front of the building and the servant sleeping at the back. He went to bed on the night of the occurrence at about a quarter past eleven, his wife having retired previously. He was awake at various times during the night, but he did not think he was awake between two and four. At the latter hour he was called up by the police. His wife was awake when the police arrived, and she had been awake for about an hour previously. Neither he nor his wife heard any sounds during the night. He would certainly have heard a disturbance had any taken place.
Edward Mulshaw said that he was a night watchman, employed by the Whitechapel District Board of Works. He was in Winthorpe (sic) street during the night of the 30th ult. He went on duty at a quarter to five in the afternoon, and remained there until five minutes to six on the following morning. He was watching some sewage works. Sometimes he dozed at his post, but he did not think he slept between three and four o'clock on this particular morning. He saw nobody about and heard no noise.
John Thain, police constable 96J, said that on his beat he was not bought any closer to Buck's row than Brady street. He passed the end of Buck's row every thirty minutes. Nothing occurred within his knowledge on the night in question until about 3.45 a.m., when he was signalled by a constable's lamp in Buck's row. He saw the deceased, and Police constable Neill sent him for the doctor. He searched the surrounding neighbourhood, including the railway lines, but found no traces of blood.
Robert Paul said he lived at 30 Forster street, Whitechapel. On the Friday he left home just before quarter to four, and on passing up Buck's row he saw a man in the middle of the road, who drew his attention to the murdered woman. He and the man examined the body, and he felt sure he detected faint indications of breathing.
though it was chilly morning. He and the man discussed what was best to be done, and they decided that they ought to acquaint the first policeman they met with what they had discovered.
Robert Manns (an old man in workhouse uniform) said he was keeper of the Whitechapel Mortuary. He received the body in the morning and left it in the mortuary. After having breakfast he returned and, with the assistance of a man named Hatfield, he undressed the body.
The Coroner: Oh, yes, and the inspector was present when this was done?
Witness: No, we two were alone.
The Coroner (in astonishment): Surely you make a mistake. Think again. The witness adhered to his statement, and after some further examination, the coroner remarked that Manns' evidence was quite unreliable. He was subject to fits, and apparently his memory was impaired. (It will be remembered that on a previous occasion Inspector Helston deposed to being present while the body was being stripped.)
James Hatfield, another old man, also in the workhouse uniform, said he assisted Manns to strip the body, and he described how this was done. They cut some of the clothes and tore others to get them off. He and Manns were quite alone. The deceased did not have any stays on.
A Juryman (indignantly): Why when we were in the yard you showed me the stays. You even put them on to show me how small they were. (Laughter.)
The witness said he had no recollection of such a thing, and the coroner remarked that it was useless to examine this witness further, as he, too, evidently
Police Inspector Spratling said that after the body had been found he made various inquiries in the neighbourhood, though he did not call at all the houses in Buck's row.
The Coroner: Is there any further evidence?
Inspector Helston: No, sir.
The Coroner: Is any further evidence likely to transpire?
Inspector Helston: Not to my knowledge, sir.
The coroner then asked the jury whether they would like to adjourn the inquiry on the chance of some further evidence being forthcoming.
A Juryman (warmly): I want to say that we think the Home Secretary should have offered a reward. Several horrible murders have been committed, and the neighbourhood is in a state of great alarm. The fright has even made some persons ill, and yet Mr. Matthews offers no reward. If a reward had been offered after the first of these terrible outrages we think the monster would have been caught, and then the others never would have been committed. If the victims had been rich instead of poor, a large reward would have been offered.
The Coroner: I don't think you have any right to say that. I understand that the practice of offering rewards has been discontinued.
The Juryman: Then it ought to be revived. People say the money might get into undeserving hands; but what matter if it did? All we want is to catch the perpetrator of these horrible murders.
The Coroner: I agree with you that they are horrible, and in my opinion the first of the series, of which little notice was taken, was the most horrible of all.
After some further discussion the inquest was adjourned.
Startling Medical Evidence.
Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, the coroner for Southeast Middlesex, resumed his inquiries on Wednesday into the circumstances attending the death of Annie Chapman, otherwise Annie Sievey, who was brutally murdered on the 8th instant in the yard of 29 Hanbury street, Whitechapel. The inquest was held, as before, in the hall of the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel road.
Eliza Cooper, the first witness, said: I am a hawker, and I knew the deceased. I had a quarrel with her on the Tuesday before her death. That was on September 4th. On the previous Saturday she brought Mr. Stanley to the lodging house. Stanley did not give up the soap. Then afterwards we went to a public house, where Stanley gave her two shillings. On the Tuesday morning I saw the deceased again. I met her in the kitchen and asked her for my soap. She threw me a halfpenny and told me to buy the soap. We then went to the Ringers public house, still quarrelling. She struck me and I then struck her twice, once on the eye and once on the chest. I saw afterwards the blow had marked her face. The last time I saw her alive was on the Wednesday. She was wearing three rings on the left hand. These were brass rings. She never had a gold wedding ring since I have known her - that is for fifteen months. She only associated with Stanley and Harry the Hawker, as far as I know. I did not see her after Wednesday, September 5th. Deceased used to bring men casually into the lodging house. I cannot say if any are missing.
Dr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, was recalled. The coroner said that all the details of the post mortem should be placed on the depositions.
Dr. Phillips: I cannot help regretting that you have come to this conclusion. There was evidence to show that the person who cut the deceased's throat must have caught hold of the woman's chin. There were scratchings on the chin and on the right side of the face near the eye. On the right side of the face there was a well marked bruise. I watched these bruises, and they became much more distinct, whereas the older bruises remained the same.
The doctor here again said it would be a pity to publish the further details, because it might thwart the interests of justice.
The coroner said that they were bound to have the evidence, but the boys (press messengers) and some ladies present must leave the court.
The court was cleared of women and boys.
The Foreman: We think the full evidence should be given.
The Coroner: I think the details should be heard. I have never heard of evidence at an inquest being kept back. This evidence has been delayed for some time, and it is now a fortnight since this inquiry was opened, so that justice has had time to avenge itself. As to the publication of the evidence, the responsibility rests not with me but with the press.
The evidence already given on the last occasion by the doctor was then read over by the coroner.
Dr. Phillips (continuing) in the course of his evidence, some of which was unfit for publication, said: The abdominal wall had been removed in three portions, two taken from the anterior part. There was a greater portion of skin removed on the right side than on the left. On adjusting these three flaps of skin it was evident that a portion surrounding and constituting the navel was wanting. I removed the intestines in the same manner as I found them in the yard on the morning of the 8th. The necessary vessels supplying them were severed. The larger intestine remained in situ. Part of the bladder and other portions of the internal organs were absent, and could nowhere be traced. The womb had been cut away and was missing. It was certain that these absent portions, together with the division of the large intestine, were the result of the same excision, hence my opinion that the length of the weapon was from five to six inches, probably more. The appearance of the cut surfaces confirmed me in the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the neck, had been of a very sharp character. The mode of removal of the abdominal wall indicated a certain amount of anatomical knowledge, as the excision in two or three portions, and the non wounding of the intestine in not more than one part seemed to indicate.
The Coroner: Can you give any idea as to the time it took to inflict these injuries?
Dr. Phillips: I myself could not have inflicted all those injuries, and then without a struggle, in less than a quarter of an hour. If done in the more deliberate manner adopted by a surgeon, it would have taken nearly an hour. For that reason, I say the mutilations were hastily performed.
The Coroner: What quantity of the contents of the stomach are absent?
Dr. Phillips: The missing portions would go into a breakfast cup. I discovered no traces of blood upon the palings.
By the Foreman: I was asked by the police whether a photograph of the deceased's eye would be of any use; but I gave it as my opinion that a photograph of the eye would be useless in this case. I also was asked whether bloodhounds could be used with success. I said I thought not, as there was so much of the woman's blood in the yard. The injuries I found on the lower part of the woman's face were consistent with partial suffocation.
Elizabeth Long: I live at 3 Church row, and I am married. I never saw the deceased until Saturday morning, September 8th, when I was passing down Hanbury street. I was going to market. It was half past five. I know that because the brewers' clock had just struck. I was on the same side a No. 29. I saw a man and women standing on the pavement talking. The man's back was turned towards Brick lane, and the woman's back was towards Spitalfields Market. They were near 29 Hanbury street - only a few yards from that house. I saw the woman's face. It was the deceased, whom I saw at the mortuary after death. I am sure it is the same woman. The man had a brown hat on, but I could not distinguish his face. I think he had on a dark coat, but I am not certain. He was a man who looked to be over 40 years of age. He seemed to be a little taller than the deceased. He appeared to be a foreigner, and was shabbily dressed. They were talking loudly. He said to her, "Will you?" and she said, "Yes." That is all I heard. I passed on, and I did not look back. I saw nothing to make me think that either of them were the worse for drink. It was not unusual to see men and women talking together at that hour.
Edward Stanley said: I live at No. 1 Osborne street, Spitalfields. I am a bricklayer's labourer, and am known as "the pensioner." I knew the deceased, and used occasionally to visit her. I last saw her alive on Sunday, September 2nd., between one and three in the afternoon. She was wearing two rings when I saw her. I should think they were brass. I do not know of any one she was on bad terms with. She had slight black eye that some woman had given her.
The Foreman: The blows were given on Tuesday, the 4th inst.
Witness: It is possible that I saw deceased again casually after Sunday, as I was doing nothing all the week. I did not go to the same lodging house with the deceased every week. I never stayed with deceased from Saturday to Monday.
The Coroner: Are you a pensioner?
Witness: Am I obliged to answer that question? I have no pension and never belonged to the West Sussex Regiment. I am a law abiding man.
Donovan, the lodging house deputy, recalled, said: This man, Stanley, is the man I know as "the pensioner." He used to come to the lodging house on Saturday and stay until Monday with the deceased woman. He is the man who told me to always keep his bed for him on Saturdays. That was on the second Saturday he came. He came for six or seven Saturdays following, the last time being the Saturday before the woman's death. On that Saturday he paid for one night, and the deceased afterwards paid for Sunday night. Stanley stayed with her till Monday.
The Coroner: What do you say to that, Mr. Stanley?
Stanley: You can cross it all out. I was at Gosport from August 6th till September 1st, so I could not have been at the lodging house every Saturday for the previous six weeks. The deceased had a husband at Windsor, a coachman. I called at the lodging house after the murder to inquire about the deceased. After reading in the papers what you said about me I communicated with the police.
The coroner said he thought the lodging house keeper had made a mistake in the man.
Albert Cadosch, a carpenter, stated that he resided at No. 27 Hanbury street. That was next door to No. 29. On Saturday, the 8th inst., he got up at about 5.15 and went into the yard of his house. As he returned across the yard to the back door of his house, he heard a voice say quite close to him, "No." He believed it came from No. 29. He went into the house, and returned to the yard three or four minutes afterwards. He then heard a sort of
The fence divided his yard from No. 29. Something seemed suddenly to touch the fence. He did not look to see what it was. He did not hear any other noise.
By the Coroner: He did not hear the rustling of any clothes.
Witness then left the house and went to his work. When he passed Spitalfields Church it was about thirty two minutes past five. He did not hear people in the yard as a rule, but had now and then heard them at that time in the morning.
By the Jury: He did not go into the yard out of curiosity. He had been under an operation at the hospital. He informed the police the same day of what he had heard. The palings were about 5ft 6in in height. He had not the curiosity to look over the fence, as at times the next door people were early risers. When he left the house he did not see any man or woman in Hanbury street. He did not see Mrs. Long.
William Stevens. a painter, of 35 Dorset street, deposed that he knew the deceased, whom he last saw alive about twelve minutes past twelve in the early morning of her death. She was then in the kitchen of the lodging house, and was not the worse for drink. At that time she had
Witness believed the piece of envelope produced was the one he saw deceased pick up by the fireplace. He noticed that it was about the size of the piece produced, and he saw it had a red post mark on it. Deceased then pulled out a box containing pills from her pocket, and the box breaking she put the pills into the piece of paper, and put it into her pocket. He saw deceased leave the kitchen, and thought she was going to bed, as she said she would not be long out of bed.
By the Coroner: He did not know of any one with whom the deceased was on bad terms.
The coroner said that was all the evidence forthcoming. It was a question for the jury whether they would adjourn the case or return their verdict.
The foreman stated that the reward of Mr. S. Montagu, M.P., of £100, had been posted about, but the Government did not, as the coroner had previously stated, now offer rewards. At the same time, if the Government had offered a reward, it would have looked more official.
After some further conversation, the inquiry was adjourned until Wednesday next, when it will be completed.
A meeting of the Vigilance Committee, of which Mr. Lusk is president, met again at 74 Mile End road, for the purpose of receiving the reports of their honorary officers in the matter.
The secretary said that on the 15th inst. the committee sent a letter to the Home Secretary on the subject, which was to the following effect:-
"At a meeting of the committee of gentlemen, held at 74 Mile End road, E., it was resolved to approach you upon the subject of the reward we are about to issue for the discovery of the author or authors of the late atrocities in the East end of London, and ask you, sir, to augment our fund for the said purpose, or kindly state your reasons for refusing."
To this letter he had received the following communication:-
"Sir - I am directed by the Secretary of State to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 16th inst. with reference to the question of the offer of a reward for the discovery of the perpetrators of the recent murders in Whitechapel, and I am to inform you that had the Secretary of State considered the case a proper one for the offer of a reward he would at once have offered one on behalf of the Government, but that the practice of offering rewards for the discovery of criminals was discontinued some years ago, because experience showed that such offers of reward tended to produce more harm than good, and the Secretary of State is satisfied that there is nothing in the circumstances of the present case to justify a departure from this rule.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
G. Leigh Pemberton."
The landlord of the hotel in Finsbury, where the man Weitzel, now in custody charged with attempting to stab a youth in Whitechapel, stayed at various times, made the following statement to a representative of the Press Association on Wednesday:-
"I must say I have been very suspicious of the man since the last murder in Whitechapel. On the day after that event, that is Sunday, he called here about nine o'clock in a very dirty state and asked to be allowed to wash. He said he had been out all night, and began to talk about the Spitalfields affair. He wore a felt hat, a dirty greyish suit, and yellow seaside slippers. He brought with him a case of razors and a large pair of scissors, and after a time he wanted to shave me. I did not like the way he went on and refused. Previous to this I had not seen him for about eighteen months and made most contradictory statements as to where he had been. I did not see whether he had any blood on his hands, as has been said, for I did not watch him very closely and wanted to get him out of the place as soon as possible. He is a most extraordinary man, is always in a bad temper, and grinds his teeth with rage at any little thing which puts him out. I believe he has some knowledge of anatomy, as he was for some time an assistant to some doctors in the German army, and helped to dissect bodies. He always carries some razors and a pair of scissors with him, and when he came here again on Monday night last he produced them. He was annoyed because I would not let him sleep here, and threw down the razors in a passion, swearing at the same time. If there had been a policeman near I should have given him into custody. I noticed on this occasion a great change in his dress. Whereas on the former visit he looked very untidy, he was this time wearing a top hat, and looked rather smart. He has told me that he had been living in the West end, but I believe he is well known at the cheap lodging houses in Whitechapel. From what he has said to me, I knew he was in the habit of associating with low women. On Monday last he remained here till about one o'clock, and I then turned him out, as he is a very disagreeable fellow and very dirty in his habits. The police have not been to see me yet about him.
At Woolwich Police Court on Monday, a labourer named Edward Quinn, aged 35, was placed in the dock before Mr. Fenwick, charged nominally with being drunk at the police station. His face and hands were much bruised, and when charged were stained with blood. The magistrate was about disposing of the case briefly, when the prisoner remarked that he had a complaint to make and stated as follows:-
On Saturday I was at a bar down by the Arsenal at Woolwich, having a drink. I had stumbled over something in the street just before, and had cut my face and knuckles as you see, and I had bled a good lot. While at the bar a big tall man came in and stood beside me and looked at me. He got me in tow, and gave me some beer and tobacco, and then he said, "I mean to charge you with the Whitechapel murders." I thought it was a joke, and laughed, but he said he was serious, and pointed to the blood about me. I said, "Nonsense, is this all the clue you have got?" He then dropped the subject, and took me for a walk until we got to the police station, where he charged me with the Whitechapel murders.
Mr. Fenwick: Were you not drunk?
Quinn: Certainly not, sir.
Mr. Fenwick: You will be remanded until tomorrow.
Quinn: This is rather rough. I am dragged a mile to the station and locked up, and I am to wait another day with all this suspicion of murder hanging over my head.
Mr. Fenwick: I will take your own bail of £5 for your reappearance.
Quinn: I object to the whole thing. Me murder a woman! I couldn't murder a cat. (Laughter.)
The prisoner was then released on his own recognisances.
The following facts which have just come to hand may furnish a clue by which the Hanbury street murderer may be traced. On the day of the murder (8th inst.) a man was seen in the lavatory of the City News Rooms, Ludgate Circus Buildings, changing his clothes. He departed hurriedly, leaving behind him a pair of trousers, a shirt, and a pair of socks. Unfortunately, no one connected with the establishment saw the man, or he would certainly have been stopped and questioned as to why he was changing his clothes there and leaving the old ones behind. Mr. walker, the proprietor of the news rooms, states that he did not hear of the occurrence until late in the afternoon, when his attention was called to the clothes in the lavatory. He did not at the time attach any importance to the fact, and the clothes were thrown into the dust box and placed outside, being carted away in the City Sewers' cart on the Monday. On the following Tuesday, however, he received a visit from a man who represented himself to be a police officer and asked for the clothes which had been left there on the Saturday.
Mr. Walker replied that if he wanted them he would have to go to the Commissioners of the City Sewers, telling him at the same time what he had done with them. Two detectives called on the 13th inst., and had an interview with Mr. Walker, and they succeeded in finding a man who saw the party changing his clothes in the lavatory, and he has given the police a description of him. He is described as a man of respectable appearance, about 30 years of age, and wearing a dark moustache; but the police are very reticent about the matter, and decline to give any information on the subject. They evidently attach some importance to the affair, as Mr. Walker again received a visit from two detectives on Tuesday morning. The police are now trying to trace the clothes, and it is hoped they will furnish some clue to lead to the identity of the man whom they are searching for.
Charles Ludwig, 40, a decently dressed German, of the Minories, was charged at the Thames Police Court on Tuesday with being drunk and threatening to stab Alexander Finlay, of 51 Leman street, Whitechapel.
The prosecutor said that at three o'clock that morning he was standing at a coffee stall in Whitechapel, when the accused came up drunk, and in consequence was refused to be served. He then said to the prosecutor, "What are you looking at?" and pulled out a knife with which he tried to stab the witness. Ludwig followed him round the stall, and made several attempts to stab him. A constable then came up, and he was given into custody.
Constable 221H said the prisoner was in a very excited condition, and the witness had previously received information that he was wanted in the City for attempting to cut a woman's throat with a razor. On the way to the station he dropped a long bladed open knife, and on him were found a razor and a long bladed pair of scissors.
Inspector Pimley, H Division, asked the magistrate to remand the prisoner, as they had not had sufficient time to make inquiries concerning him.
A City constable, John Johnson, 866, stated that early that morning he was on duty in the Minories, when he heard loud screams of "Murder" proceeding from a court. The court led to some railway arches, and was well known as a dangerous locality. On going into the court he found the prisoner with a woman. The former appeared to be under the influence of drink. The witness asked what he was doing there, when he replied "Nothing." The woman, who appeared to be in a very agitated state, said, "Oh, policeman, do take me out of this." The woman was so frightened that she could then give no further explanation. The witness got her and the accused out of the court, and sent the latter off. He walked with the woman to the end of his beat, when she said, "Dear me. He frightened me very much when he pulled a big knife out." The witness said, "Why didn't you tell me that at the time?" and she said, "I was too much frightened." He then searched for the prisoner, but could not find him, and therefore told several other constables what he had seen and heard. The witness had been out all the morning trying to find the woman, but up to the present time had not been able to do so. He should know her again. He believed the prisoner worked in the neighbourhood.
Mr. Saunders said it was clear the prisoner was a dangerous man, and order him to be remanded.
With reference to the statement contained in last week's Lancet to the effect that to their mind the lunacy of the murderer was not yet clearly established, and that homicidal tendency in lunatics was confined to the desire to kill one individual. Dr. Forbes Winslow has replied in their columns:-
"Being more or less responsible for the original opinion that the individual who committed the wholesale slaughter in Whitechapel was a lunatic, I beg to trouble you with this communication. In the interview I had with the officials at Whitehall place I gathered that this was also their theory. In your issue of the 15th inst. you say - 'The theory that the succession of murders in Whitechapel are the work of a lunatic appears to us to be my no means at present well established.' Of course, it is impossible to give a positiveness to the theory unless some more evidence can be established; nevertheless, to my mind, the case appears tolerably conclusive. The horrible and revolting details as stated in the public press, are themselves evidence, not of crimes committed by a responsible individual, but by a fiendish madman. You go on to add that 'homicidal mania is generally characterised by one single and fatal act.' Having had extensive experience in cases of homicidal insanity, and having been retained in the chief cases during the past twenty years, I speak as an authority on this part of the subject. I cannot agree with your statement. I will give one case which recalls itself to my recollection. A gentleman entered my consulting rooms. He took his seat, and on my asking what it was he complained of, replied, 'I have a desire to kill every one I meet.' I then asked him for further illustration of his meaning. he then said:-
"As I walk along the street I say to myself as I pass any one, 'I would like to kill you;' I don't know why at all.' Upon my further pressing him on the matter, he jumped up and attempted a seize a weapon from his pocket, and to give me a further clue of what he was capable, and more realistic illustration. I was enabled, however, to frustrate him in this desire. Another case in which I was retained as expert was that of Mr. Richardson, who committed murder at Ramsgate (his homicidal tendency was not confined to one individual,( and was tried at Maidstone this year; and there are many others I could mention. Homicidal lunatics are cunning, deceptive, plausible, and on the surface - to all outward appearance - sane, but there is contained within their innermost nature a dangerous lurking after blood, which, though at times latent, will develop when the opportunity arises."