Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files (2 page)

I have also included other additional witness testimony from the inquest hearing, which I feel is relevant and the reasons will soon become apparent.

Detective Sergeant Enright of Scotland Yard, told the coroner that following the removal of the body to the workhouse mortuary, two workhouse officials had without permission stripped the body and the said clothes, which were lying in a heap in the mortuary yard. They consisted of a reddish-brown ulster, with seven large brass buttons, and a brown dress, which looked new. There were also a woollen and a flannel petticoat, belonging to the workhouse. Inspector Helson had cut out pieces marked ‘P. R., Princes-road,’ with a view to tracing the body.

Inspector John Spratling, J Division, Metropolitan Police stated that the clothes were fastened when he first saw the body.

Inspector Jos. Helson deposed that he first received information about the murder at 6.45am on Friday morning. He afterwards went to the mortuary, where he saw the body with the clothes still on it.

Dr Llewellyn recalled, he had re-examined the body and there was no part of the viscera missing…

Robert Mann, the keeper of the mortuary, said the police came to the workhouse, of which he was an inmate. He went, in consequence, to the mortuary at 5am. He saw the body placed there, and then locked the place up and kept the keys. After breakfast he and another inmate of the workhouse, undressed the woman.

A verdict of wilful murder by person or persons unknown was recorded. To this day her murder remains unsolved.

ANNIE CHAPMAN

The next victim was Annie Chapman 47, she was found dead in the backyard at 29, Hanbury Street on 8th September 1888. Her throat, like Mary Ann Nichols’s, was dissevered deeply. She had been disembowelled and her uterus plus the fallopian tubes still attached, were found to be missing at the time the post-mortem was carried out. Her intestines had allegedly been placed over her right shoulder and other parts of her stomach were found outside the abdominal cavity on her left side.

It was also noted that some of her possessions were found near to a railing in the rear yard. I will comment on this issue before discussing the murder and the subsequent post-mortem and inquest.

The suggestion in recent times was that her possessions had been placed there by the killer and arranged as part of some ritualistic ceremony... These items were a small piece of coarse muslin, a small toothcomb, and a pocket comb in a paper case. I do not subscribe to this and would suggest there is a simple, less sinister explanation.

It is obvious that Chapman met her killer and they both went to the rear of 29, Hanbury Street to engage in some form of sexual activity. She was not carrying a handbag and would probably have had her possessions in the pocket of her dress or apron. On entering the rear yard and in order to engage in a sex act, which would have resulted in her lifting up her dress and apron, she could have simply taken out her own possessions and placed them on the floor so as to not lose them, intending to pick them up when she had finished and before leaving.

Chapman was allegedly last seen alive at around 5.30am, talking to a man near to where her body was found. The man was described as shabbily dressed, over forty-years of age, with a dark complexion, possibly of foreign appearance. He was wearing a brown deerstalker hat and what is believed to have been a dark overcoat, although this evidence of identification like many other suspect sightings throughout the investigation is unsafe and should not be totally relied upon. Another witness who lived next door to 29, Hanbury Street would say that he heard noises in the rear yard of Hanbury Street at 5.40am. In fact Dr. Phillips, the police surgeon, would later suggest that her death could have occurred at around 4am.

The inquest to her death was opened on September 11th by the coroner Mr. Wynne Baxter, among the first witnesses called were two workmen who were called to the murder scene by John Davies a tenant of 29, Hanbury Street who initially found the body. The first witness was James Kent who testified as follows :

“I work for Mr. Bayley, 23A, Hanbury-street, and go there at six a.m. On Saturday I arrived about ten minutes past that hour. Our employer's gate was open, and there I waited for some other men. Davis, who lives two or three doors away, ran from his house into the road and cried, "Men, come here." James Green and I went together to 29, Hanbury-street, and on going through the passage, standing on the top of the back-door steps, I saw a woman lying in the yard between the steps and the partition between the yard and the next. Her head was near the house, but no part of the body was against the wall. The feet were lying towards the back of Bayley's premises. (Witness indicated the precise position upon a plan produced by the police officers.) Deceased's clothes were disarranged, and her apron was thrown over them. I did not go down the steps, but went outside and returned after Inspector Chandler had arrived. I could see that the woman was dead. She had some kind of handkerchief around her throat, which seemed soaked in blood. The face and hands were besmeared with blood, as if she had struggled. She appeared to have been on her back and fought with her hands to free herself. The hands were turned toward her throat. The legs were wide apart, and there were marks of blood upon them. The entrails were protruding, and were lying across her left side. I got a piece of canvas from the shop to throw over the body, and by that time a mob had assembled, and Inspector Chandler was in possession of the yard. The foreman gets to the shop at ten minutes to six every morning, and he was there before us.”

A further witness was Inspector Chandler from H Division Metropolitan Police the relevant part of his testimony is:

“On Saturday morning, at ten minutes past six, I was on duty in Commercial-street. At the corner of Hanbury-street I saw several men running. I beckoned to them. One of them said, "Another woman has been murdered." I at once went with him to 29, Hanbury-street, and through the passage into the yard. There was no one in the yard. I saw the body of a woman lying on the ground on her back. Her head was towards the back wall of the house, nearly two feet from the wall, at the bottom of the steps, but six or nine inches away from them. The face was turned to the right side, and the left arm was resting on the left breast. The right hand was lying down the right side. Deceased's legs were drawn up, and the clothing was above the knees. A portion of the intestines, still connected with the body, were lying above the right shoulder, with some pieces of skin. There were also some pieces of skin on the left shoulder. The body was lying parallel with the fencing dividing the two yards. I remained there and sent for the divisional surgeon, Mr. Phillips, and to the police station for the ambulance and for further assistance. When the constables arrived I cleared the passage of people, and saw that no one touched the body until the doctor arrived. I obtained some sacking to cover it before the arrival of the surgeon, who came at about half-past six o'clock, and he, having examined the body, and directed that it should be removed to the mortuary.”

Amongst other witnesses who were called was Sergeant Badham, H Division. He stated that he conveyed the body of the deceased to the mortuary on the ambulance.

Coroner:
Are you sure that you took every portion of the body away with you
?

Badham:
Yes
.

Coroner:
Where did you deposit the body?

Badham:
In the shed, still on the ambulance. I remained with it until Inspector Chandler arrived. Detective-Sergeant Thicke viewed the body and I took down the description. There were present two women, who came to identify the body, and they described the clothing. They came from 35,
Dorset-street
.

Coroner:
Who touched the clothing?

Badham:
I did not see the women touch the clothing nor the body. I did not see Sergeant Thicke touch the body
.

Inspector Chandler, recalled:

“I reached the mortuary a few minutes after seven. The body did not appear to have been disturbed. He did not stay until the doctor arrived. Police-constable 376 H was left in charge, with the mortuary keeper. Robert Mann, the mortuary keeper and an inmate of the Whitechapel Union Workhouse, said he received the body at seven o'clock on Saturday morning. He remained at the mortuary until Dr. Phillips came. The door of the mortuary was locked except when two nurses from an infirmary came and undressed the body. No one else touched the corpse. He gave the key into the hands of the police
.

Set out below is the medical evidence given by Dr. George Bagster Phillips the police surgeon, together with questions put to him during his testimony.

He first describes the body of Annie Chapman as he saw it at 6.30am in the backyard of the house at 29, Hanbury Street:

"The left arm was placed across the left breast. The legs were drawn up, the feet resting on the ground, and the knees turned outwards. The face was swollen and turned on the right side. The tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The tongue was evidently much swollen. The front teeth were perfect as far as the first molar, top and bottom and very fine teeth they were. The body was terribly mutilated... the stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but was evidently commencing. He noticed that the throat was dissevered deeply; that the incision through the skin was jagged and reached right round the neck... On the wooden paling between the yard in question and the next, smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased lay, were to be seen. These were about 14 inches from the ground, and immediately above the part where the blood from the neck lay
.

He should say that the instrument used at the throat and abdomen was the same. It must have been a very sharp knife with a thin narrow blade, and must have been at least 6 in. to 8 in. in length, probably longer. He should say that the injuries could not have been inflicted by a bayonet or a sword bayonet. They could have been done by such an instrument as a medical man used for post-mortem purposes, but the ordinary surgical cases might not contain such an instrument. Those used by the slaughtermen, well ground down, might have caused them. He thought the knives used by those in the leather trade would not be long enough in the blade. There were indications of anatomical knowledge... he should say that the deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more, when he first saw her; but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood. There was no evidence... of a struggle having taken place. He was positive the deceased entered the yard alive... A handkerchief was round the throat of the deceased when he saw it early in the morning. He should say it was not tied on after the throat was cut."

He then gives further details following his post-mortem examination:

“Having received instructions soon after two o’clock on Saturday afternoon, I went to the labour yard of the Whitechapel Union for the purpose of further examining the body and making the usual post-mortem investigation. I was surprised to find that the body had been stripped and was lying ready on the table. It was under great disadvantage I made my examination. As on many occasions I have met with the same difficulty, I now raise my protest, as I have before, that members of my profession should be called upon to perform their duties under these inadequate circumstances…

“The body had been attended to since its removal to the mortuary, and probably partially washed. I noticed a bruise over the right temple. There was a bruise under the clavicle, and there were two distinct bruises, each the size of a man’s thumb, on the fore part of the chest. The stiffness of the limbs was then well marked. The fingernails were turgid. There was an old scar of long-standing on the left of the frontal bone. On the left side the stiffness was more noticeable, and especially in the fingers, which were partly closed. There was an abrasion over the bend of the first joint of the ring finger, and there were distinct markings of a ring or rings – probably the latter. There were small sores on the fingers. The head being opened showed that the membranes of the brain were opaque and the veins loaded with blood of a dark character. There was a large quantity of fluid between the membranes and the substance of the brain. The brain substance was unusually firm, and its cavities also contained a large amount of fluid. The throat had been severed. The incisions of the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side of the neck on a line with the angle of the jaw, carried entirely round and again in front of the neck, and ending at a point about midway between the jaw and the sternum or breast bone on the right hand. There were two distinct clean cuts on the body of the vertebrae on the left side of the spine. They were parallel to each other, and separated by about half an inch. The muscular structures between the side processes of bone of the vertebrae had an appearance as if an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck. There are various other mutilations of the body, but I am of the opinion that they occurred subsequently to the death of the woman and to the large escape of blood from the neck. [Phillips paused] I am entirely in your hands, sir, but is it necessary that I should describe the further mutilations? From what I have said I can state the cause of death.”

Coroner:
The object of the inquiry is not only to ascertain the cause of death, but the means by which it occurred. Any mutilation, which took place, afterwards may suggest the character of the man who did it. Possibly you can give us the conclusions to which you have come respecting the instrument used
.

Dr. Phillips:
You don’t wish for details. I think if it were possible to escape the details it would be advisable. The cause of death is visible from injuries I have described
.

Coroner:
You have kept a record of them?