The historic serial attacker you’ve never heard of: 100 years before Jack the Ripper, how the London Monster terrorized the capital and might have inspired the Beast of Whitechapel

The women refuse to leave the house alone while a madman prowls the streets of London.

He hunts down his victims to slash and mutilate their bodies, with militias patrolling night and day after police spent two years failing to trap him.

Rich men have offered huge cash rewards to find the beast, and newspapers are full of stories about his horrific crimes.

But this is no Victorian Whitechapel – and the man is no Jack the Ripper, the maniac in question is the London Monster, a much lesser-known psychopath who terrified the capital 100 years earlier.

The Monster claimed more than 50 known victims – including six in one day – and struck in parks across central London. He also attacked women outside bawdy houses in Mayfair and St James, driven by his sexual perversion to pierce women’s skin.

Its story was discovered by academic and amateur historian Dr Jan Bondeson, who found a 200-year-old research poster in the annals of the British Library. He then painstakingly studied documents, newspapers, caricatures and court records to tell the story of the Monster for the first time.

During a two-year reign of terror, from 1788 to 1790, the London Monster struck women in the buttocks, stomachs or faces with a knife, spike or scalpel.

He would always approach his victim from behind so they wouldn’t see his face, before slicing them with a razor-sharp rapier. He was told he was distracting them by shouting, “Is that you?” “.

Some women were stabbed with a sharp point at the end of his knee and he was also known to carry a bouquet of sweet flowers – only to brutalize and mutilate him. Hidden inside the flowers was a spike, used to stab a woman in the face and nose when asked to sniff them.

As panic spread, some women sewed soup pots under their dresses to protect themselves – or the wealthiest in society had metal petticoats made.

His crimes caused panic in a way that was only seen when Jack the Ripper struck London in 1888 and the Yorkshire Ripper killed 13 people between 1975 and 1980 in the north of England.

The London Monster was motivated by piquerism, derived from the French for sting, and refers to a sexual interest in penetrating the skin.

A century later, Jack the Ripper had the same fetish and it became a feature of his murders.

Dr Jan Bondeson wrote about him in his book ‘The London Monster: Terror on the Streets’ and although Welsh florist and ballet dancer Rhynwick Williams was eventually arrested and prosecuted, doubts remain as to whether he was the real monster or, in fact, whether there were one or more copycats.

What is beyond doubt is that the London Monster inspired Jack, the Whitechapel murderer, whose identity has never been revealed.

“The London Monster’s modus operandi was to approach its victim from behind,” Dr Bondeson said.

“Sometimes he would speak to them with abusive language or shout, ‘Oh ho, is that you?’, like a theater villain, and then he would cut their thighs or buttocks with a sharp rapier.

“Some of the victims he attacked using a spike protruding from his knee and with other victims he approached a bouquet of artificial flowers and he invited them to smell it and when they “he stabbed them in the nose with a sharp object hidden inside,” he told the BBC in 2022.

The monster attacked women in the Mayfair and St James areas of London, as well as near where Buckingham Palace stands today, around Green Park.

Women were terrified and adopted extraordinary means to protect themselves.

“To avoid being cut, shapely ladies of London bought ‘cork butts’ to attach under their skirts or even wore copper petticoats.

“But less wealthy women had to use a pot of porridge instead,” Dr Bondeson said.

Although some victims were raped, some women faked attacks for notoriety and other reasons.

“Since it was considered to only cut young, beautiful and fashionable women, many women even faked monster attacks to make people believe they were still attractive,” Dr. Bondeson said.

“And one of those victims, Elizabeth Davis, said that when she was cut by the Monster, she thought it was a compliment because she was a washerwoman.”

He added: “It was also possible that there was more than one monster.”

By the time the Monster was finally apprehended, his number of traumatized victims had reached over 50, although there were no deaths.

The accused man turned out to be a Welsh ballet dancer who hated women and had been sacked from his West End role.

In the months leading up to the Monster’s capture, hysteria gripped the capital.

Newspapers put up posters describing his sordid crimes and a reward of £100 (£7,700 in today’s money) was placed on his head.

Vigilant “monster hunters” beat innocent men who aroused suspicion, while women wore copper petticoats for protection.

Some have theorized that the Monster was a mad noble bent on mutilating all the beautiful women in the capital, or even a supernatural being capable of turning invisible to escape detection.

Finally, on June 13, 1790, a suspect was arrested.

Rhynwick Williams, 23, had been sacked from a theater for theft and was identified as the Monster by victim Anne Porter in Green Park, central London.

She reported it to vigilante John Coleman who apprehended him.

Williams, whose disgrace had seen him descend into London’s seedy underworld, was nearly lynched by a mob.

He lived in a dirty, crowded pub where he shared a bed with another man, leading accusers to believe he was taking part in an “anti-women crusade”.

Williams stood trial and was found guilty of his “offenses” at the Old Bailey, but was spared the death penalty and was imprisoned for six years at Newgate Prison.

What happened to him after his release remains a mystery.

However, Dr Bondeson, a consultant physician at Cardiff University, revealed serious doubts about whether Williams was actually responsible for all these sordid crimes.

He said police forced the victims to identify him during identity checks and he was charged even when the women did not spot him.

Although Williams was an “unsavory” character, he believes he may have been used as a scapegoat for the crimes in an attempt to end panic in the streets.

After carrying out extensive research, Dr Bondeson said it was more likely that they were committed by a multitude of miscreants engaging in the first known “copycat” crime.

Dr Bondeson said: “In 1790, almost a century before Jack the Ripper haunted the streets of London, another predator ruled.

“The Monster, as this mysterious miscreant was soon nicknamed, would approach a beautiful, well-dressed lady, insult her with crude and earthy language, then stab her in the thigh or buttocks.

“He struck at regular intervals, injuring young, beautiful women on the streets of London.

“As this kind of sadistic behavior was unknown at the time, there was widespread outrage among Londoners and the female world of the capital was in turmoil.

“Throughout the first half of 1790, the newspapers were filled with the latest attacks by the Monster.

“Anne Porter, the victim of the Monster who pointed the finger at Williams at Green Park, was certain he was the one who cut her.

“She was supported by her three sisters, all of whom testified that the Welshman had a habit of stalking them in the streets, using the most horrible and insulting language.

“However, other victims of Monster were unable to identify Williams, and some said they were certain that it was not him who cut them.

“There is also evidence that police deliberately coached at least one victim of the Monster to identify Williams as the man who attacked them.

“The Welshman was probably a pervert who liked to insult women and one of the misogynistic characters that roamed the streets, but in my mind it is not proven that he stabbed anyone.

“So it’s entirely possible that the Welshman was just a scapegoat, unlucky enough to fall into the hands of the authorities when they needed someone to pay for the Monster’s crimes.”

“It is evident that there were several copycat monsters on the loose, mimicking the original attacker – and this actually constitutes the first known example of copycat crime.”