Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files (10 page)

3. Berner Street
.

4. Mitre Square
.

“I have also made a Post-Mortem Examination of the mutilated remains of a woman found yesterday in a small room in Dorset Street –

“All five murders were no doubt committed by the same hand. In the first four the throats appear to have been cut from left to right. In the last case owing to the extensive mutilation it is impossible to say in what direction the fatal cut was made, but arterial blood was found on the wall in splashes close to where the woman's head must have been lying
.

“All the circumstances surrounding the murders lead me to form the opinion that the women must have been lying down when murdered and in every case the throat was first cut. 3 in the four murders of which I have seen the notes only, I cannot form a very definite opinion as to the time that had elapsed between the murder and the discovering of the body
.

“In one case, that of Berner Street, the discovery appears to have been made immediately after the deed - In Buck's Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed. In the Dorset Street case the body was lying on the bed at the time of my visit, 2 o'clock, quite naked and mutilated as in the annexed report –

“Rigor Mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination. From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death as the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in. The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock and the remains of a recently taken meal were found in the stomach and scattered about over the intestines. It is, therefore, pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours and the partly digested food would indicate: that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder
.

“In all the cases there appears to be no evidence of struggling and the attacks were probably so sudden and made in such a position that the women could neither resist nor cry out. In the Dorset Street case the corner of the sheet to the right of the woman's head was much cut and saturated with blood, indicating that the face may have been covered with the sheet at the time of the attack
.

“In the four first cases the murderer must have attacked from the right side of the victim. In the Dorset Street case, he must have attacked from in front or from the left, as there would be no room for him between the wall and the part of the bed on which the woman was lying. Again, the blood had flowed down on the right side of the woman and spurted on to the wall
.

“The murderer would not necessarily be splashed or deluged with blood, but his hands and arms must have been covered and parts of his clothing must certainly have been smeared with blood
.

“The mutilations in each case excepting the Berner’s Street one were all of the same character and showed clearly that in all the murders, the object was mutilation
.

“In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals
.

“The instrument must have been a strong knife at least six inches long, very sharp, pointed at the top and about an inch in width. It may have been a clasp knife, a butcher's knife or a surgeon's knife. I think it was no doubt a straight knife
.

“The murderer must have been a man of physical strength and of great coolness and daring. There is no evidence that he had an accomplice. He must in my opinion be a man subject to periodical attacks of Homicidal and erotic mania. The character of the mutilations indicates that the man may be in a condition sexually, that may be called satyriasis. It is of course possible that the Homicidal impulse may have developed from a revengeful or brooding condition of the mind, or that Religious Mania may have been the original disease, but I do not think either hypothesis is likely. The murderer in external appearance is quite likely to be a quiet inoffensive looking man probably middle aged and neatly and respectably dressed. I think he must be in the habit of wearing a cloak or overcoat or he could hardly have escaped notice in the streets if the blood on his hands or clothes were visible
.

“Assuming the murderer to be such a person as I have just described he would probably be solitary and eccentric in his habits, also he is most likely to be a man without regular occupation, but with some small income or pension. He is possibly living among respectable persons who have some knowledge of his character and habits and who may have grounds for suspicion that he is not quite right in his mind at times. Such persons would probably be unwilling to communicate suspicions to the Police for fear of trouble or notoriety, whereas if there were a prospect of reward it might overcome their scruples
.

I am, Dear Sir
,

Yours faithfully
,

Thos. Bond
.

As can be seen Dr. Bond believed that the killer of all the victims did not show any anatomical knowledge. This again adds even more weight to my theory that the killer simply killed and mutilated Kelly and was not responsible for removing the organs from Eddowes and Chapman. He also makes no mention of the organ removals and the taking away of them.

In support of my theory it should also be noted that the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes were taken to two different mortuaries. If it is suggested that the killer removed the organs one must ask why after removing the uterus from Chapman did he want another from Eddowes. As my investigation unfolded, it will be seen from later medical evidence that both of the victim’s uteri were removed in two different ways, suggesting that two different persons removed those organs neither being responsible for the murders.

The Mary Kelly murder is one of the more intriguing murders in this series simply because of the questions which remain unanswered to this day. Was Mary Kelly killed by the same hand as the other Whitechapel victims? There are some facts which would suggest she was:

However the facts against her being killed by the same killer are:

In fact my good friend and Ripper expert Stewart Evans reminded me that even the detectives who worked on the Kelly murder had their doubts as to whether or not she was a Ripper victim. This information originally came from Bernard Davis whose grandfather was a police officer attached to Whitechapel Division during the murders. Some of the detectives told him that they didn't think that the Kelly murder was the work of the Ripper. However, this is not recorded anywhere but is verbal information given to Bernard by his grandfather.

So if Mary Kelly was not a victim of Jack the Ripper then who murdered her and what was the reason for making it appear she was a murdered by the Ripper? Was it a crime of passion committed by her estranged partner Joseph Barnett? However, this idea lacks a real motive. Although they had been separated for some time, Barnett was obviously still fond of her as he visited her once a week and on those occasions gave her money. There is no record of any ill feeling or bad blood between them either from what he told police or what police was able to gather from witnesses who knew them. So is there a more sinister theory surrounding her murder?

There has always been a question mark hanging over Mary Kelly and her true identity, where she came from, and what she had been doing prior to her arriving in Whitechapel. She was also known as Marie Jeanette Kelly, and Mary Ann Kelly. It was not uncommon for prostitutes to use several different names. Catherine Eddowes used the aliases of Mary Kelly and Kate Kelly. Polly Nichols’ real name was Mary Ann Nichols. Annie Chapman used Annie Siffey or Sievey. Elizabeth Stride was also known as Long Liz, Martha Tabram used the name Emma Turner, Alice McKenzie used Emma Bryant and Frances Coles used the names of Frances Hawkins and Frances Coleman.

All of what is documented about Kelly came from what she had told Joseph Barnett during their relationship between 1886 and 1888. She told him she was born in Limerick, Ireland. She stated that at a very young age she moved with her family to Wales.

Her father was John Kelly who worked apparently in a steelworks in Caernarfonshire. She claimed to have 6 or 7 brothers and one sister. She says that one brother, Henry, whose nickname is Johnto was a soldier in the 2nd Battalion Scots Guards stationed in Dublin, Ireland.

At the age of 16 she apparently married a collier named Davies. He was supposedly killed in a mining explosion several years later. Kelly moved to Cardiff and lived with a cousin and started work as a prostitute. She had stated she became very ill and spent the best part of the time in an infirmary.

She then came to London in 1884 taking up work as a charwoman. Barnett stated that there came a point in time when she told him that she went to work in a high-class brothel in the West End. She says that during this time she frequently rode in a carriage and accompanied one gentleman to Paris, which she didn't like and she returned. On returning she turned to drink and prostitution before meeting Barnett in 1886.

John McCarthy, landlord at Miller's Court, told police that she received a letter from her mother in Ireland and also her brother. However, there are conflicting issues with Barnett who says that she never corresponded with her family. In another report he is stated as saying she did correspond with her brother who was in the army. Despite all of this, not one family member attended her funeral or ever acknowledged her existence.

Many of the aforementioned facts surrounding Mary Kelly and her early life are impossible to prove or disprove. However, enquiries show that there is no record of a Henry Kelly serving in the Scots Guards during the 19th century. But there was a John Kelly who could have had the nickname, "Johnto" - in that regiment during the 1880s. He is shown as joining the regiment in 1876 and records show that he was discharged in Dublin in 1883. His next of kin was his brother Richard, who was in the Dublin Metropolitan Police from 1882 until 1909.

Mary Kelly told Barnett that the Scots Guards were serving in Ireland in 1888, but records show that both the regiment's battalions were in England during that year.

So was there a darker and sinister side to Mary Kelly and her early life? In the light of the lack of corroboration to what is currently known questions must be asked. One question revolves around two separate newspaper articles, which stated that later the same day that the body was discovered, Miller’s Court was visited by a number of prominent people including two Royal Irish Constabulary officers. Was it just morbid curiosity by the officers or was there another reason, and if so what was that reason?

There has always been a theory, which some researchers have advanced for many years. They suggest that Irish terrorist group the Fenians, who in addition to causing major disruptions in London by bombing buildings in 1888, were also behind some or all of the Whitechapel murders, in an attempt to force a major breakdown in the forces of law and order in London. I was later able to advance this theory following examination of another Metropolitan Police file from The National Archives. This is recorded under MEPO 18/1. The file in question is a crime record book, which contained details of internal police memos and files relating to enquiries and investigations. Some of these entries related to the Whitechapel murders although the dates of the files referred to and the entries are undated. One such entry read:
“Whitechapel Murders suggested complicity of Irish Party.”
This entry related to an original file numbered 93867.

Was Kelly a specific target for this group, and if so why, did she have a much darker past? It does seem strange that officers from the Royal Irish Constabulary should have visited the murder location, and prior to this The Evening News printed an article on October 9th which read:

“The correspondent of the Irish Times states that a number of Irish constables have been withdrawn from Dublin for special duty in connection with the Whitechapel murders.”

However following this a report was quickly sent out by the press association which read:

“The Press Association learns that there is no truth in the statement published to-day that Dublin detectives have gone to London to aid in discovering the Whitechapel murderer. Mr. John Mallow, the head of the Dublin detective force, is at present in London, but on business wholly disconnected with the East-end atrocities
.“

I am not the only the only person interested in the mystery surrounding Kelly’s true identity and the suggestion that she may have had a darker past. Another Ripper researcher Maggy Ann Steel has suggested to me that her real name could in fact be Alice Carroll who was a witness in the trial of the five Phoenix Park murderers in Ireland in 1883. The murders were carried out by a group calling themselves “The Invincibles” and were a splinter group of “The Fenians”. They murdered in Dublin in broad daylight Frederick Cavendish, Chief Secretary for Ireland and his deputy Thomas Burke, the under Secretary.