Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files (3 page)

Dr. Phillips:
I have
.
From these appearances I am of the opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death, and that death arose from syncope, or failure of the heart’s action, in consequence of the loss of blood caused by the severance of the throat
.

Coroner:
Was the instrument used at the throat the same as that used at the abdomen?

Dr. Phillips:
Very probably. It must have been a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, and at least six to eight inches in length, and perhaps longer
.

Coroner:
Is it possible that any instrument used by a military man, such as a bayonet, would have done it?

Dr. Phillips:
No, it would not be a bayonet
.

Coroner:
Would it have been such an instrument as a medical man uses for post-mortem examinations?

Dr. Phillips:
The ordinary post-mortem case perhaps does not contain such a weapon
.

Coroner
: Would any instrument that slaughterers employ have caused the injuries?

Dr. Phillips:
Yes; well ground down
.

Coroner:
Would the knife of a cobbler or of any person in the leather trades have done?

Dr. Phillips:
I think the knife used in those trades would not be long enough in the blade
.

Coroner:
Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed?

Dr. Phillips
: I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that the anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste
.

Coroner:
Was the whole of the body there?

Dr. Phillips:
No; the absent portions being from the abdomen
.

Coroner
: Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract?

Dr. Phillips:
I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge
.

Coroner:
You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary?

Dr. Phillips:
I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised
.

Coroner:
How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her?

Dr. Phillips:
I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood
.

Coroner:
Was there any evidence of any struggle?

Dr. Phillips:
No; not about the body of the woman
.

Coroner:
In your opinion did she enter the yard alive?

Dr. Phillips:
I am positive of it. I made a thorough search of the passage, and I saw no trace of blood, which must have been visible had she been taken into the yard
.

Coroner:
Were any of these injuries self-inflicted?

Dr. Phillips:
The injuries, which were the immediate cause of death, were not self-inflicted
.

Coroner:
Was the bruising you mentioned recent?

Dr. Phillips:
The marks on the face were recent, especially about the chin and sides of the jaw. The bruise upon the temple and the bruises in front of the chest were of longer standing, probably of days. I am of opinion that the person who cut the deceased’s throat took hold of her by the chin, and then commenced the incision from left to right
.

Coroner:
Could that be done so instantaneously that a person could not cry out?

Dr. Phillips:
By pressure on the throat no doubt it would be possible
.

Foreman of the jury:
There would probably be suffocation
.

Coroner:
The thickening of the tongue would be one of the signs of suffocation?

Dr. Phillips:
Yes. My impression is that she was partially strangled. (Witness added that the handkerchief produced was, when found amongst the clothing, saturated with blood. A similar article was round the throat of the deceased when he saw her early in the morning at Hanbury Street.)

Coroner:
It had not the appearance of having been tied on afterwards?

Dr. Phillips:
No. Sarah Simonds, a resident nurse at the Whitechapel Infirmary, stated that, in company of the senior nurse, she went to the mortuary on Saturday, and found the body of the deceased on the ambulance in the yard. It was afterwards taken into the shed, and placed on the table. She was directed by Inspector Chandler to undress it, and she placed the clothes in a corner. She left the handkerchief round the neck. She was sure of this. They washed stains of blood from the body. It seemed to have run down from the throat. She found the pocket tied round the waist. The strings were not torn. There were no tears or cuts in the clothes
.

Foreman of the jury:
We are of opinion that the evidence the doctor on the last occasion wished to keep back should be heard. (
Several Jurymen:
Hear, hear
.)

Coroner
: I have carefully considered the matter and have never before heard of any evidence requested being kept back…

Dr. Phillips:
I am of opinion that what I am about to describe took place after death, so that it could not affect the cause of death, which you are inquiring into
.

Coroner:
That is only your opinion, and might be repudiated by other medical opinion
.

Dr. Phillips
: Very well. I will give you the results of my post-mortem examination
.

Dr. Phillips then detailed the terrible wounds, which had been inflicted upon the woman, and described the parts of the body, which the perpetrator of the murder had carried away with him. He added:
I am of opinion that the length of the weapon with which the incisions were inflicted was at least five to six inches in length, probably more and must have been very sharp. The manner in which they had been done indicated a certain amount of anatomical knowledge
.

Coroner:
Can you give any idea how long it would take to perform the incisions found on the body?

Dr. Phillips:
I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour. The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body
.

Foreman of the jury:
Is there anything to indicate that the crime in the case of the woman Nichols was perpetrated with the same object as this?

Coroner:
There is a difference in this respect, at all events, that the medical expert is of opinion that, in the case of Nichols, the mutilations were made first
.

Foreman of the jury:
Was any photograph of the eyes of the deceased taken, in case they should retain any impression of the murderer?

Dr. Phillips:
I have no particular opinion upon that point myself. I was asked about it very early in the inquiry, and I gave my opinion that the operation would be useless, especially in this case. The use of a bloodhound was also suggested. It may be my ignorance, but the blood around was that of the murdered woman, and it would be more likely to be traced than the murderer. The police submitted these questions to me very early. I think within twenty-four hours of the murder of the woman
.

Coroner:
Were the injuries to the face and neck such as might have produced insensibility?

Dr. Phillips:
Yes; they were consistent with partial suffocation
.

The main contentious issue with this murder is the removal of the uterus, which for many years experts have suggested was carried out by the killer at the scene. The doctor who went to the murder scene and made a cursory examination did not record any organs having been removed at that time. However, he only found the uterus had been removed when conducting the post-mortem some seven hours later and stated that the person who removed the organ must have had some anatomical knowledge and stated that it would have taken a skilled medical man like himself upwards of fifteen minutes and up to one hour to carry out such a removal at the murder location.

The inquest testimony highlights a number of discrepancies. Dr. Phillips who was the last person to arrive at the murder scene states that the intestines had been taken out and placed over her shoulder. However James Kent one of the first persons who went to the murder scene states, “
The entrails were protruding, and were lying across her left side.”
It should be noted that it is not necessary to take out the intestines to remove a uterus. It is also a fact that the intestines are compacted within the body and once the abdominal wall is opened the intestines recoil outwards. So it is quite possible that during the abdominal mutilation process carried out by the killer the intestines did just that, giving the appearance of having been placed. Or equally during the frenzied attack on the abdomen the killer deliberately ripped them out.

Another issue is with the body of the victim. It was taken by the police ambulance (handcart) to the Workhouse mortuary, which in those days was nothing more than a wooden shed. It was under the care of the mortuary keeper, Robert Mann until 2pm that same day, some seven hours later when Dr. Phillips arrived and carried out the post-mortem. Robert Mann as well as being the mortuary keeper was also an inmate of the Workhouse and he himself was in 2009 named as being a likely suspect for Jack the Ripper by another author.

No one was supposed to touch or tamper with the body prior to the post-mortem being carried out. However, it is documented that other persons did have access to the body and touched and tampered with it for the purpose of stripping the body and cleaning it. The question is did anyone else, and if so for what purpose?

As a professional investigator I already had some serious nagging doubts about one particular previously accepted fact surrounding this specific murder. On the face of it there is a killer who goes with a prostitute into a backyard of a house in the early hours of the morning while it is still dark. He then kills her, mutilates her body and supposedly disembowels her, removing her uterus with the fallopian tubes attached, with what was described as anatomical knowledge. It is a fact that surgeons and doctors require a great deal of light to locate organs and either operate on them or remove them.

But during this murder the killer is alleged to have targeted and removed a specific organ, the uterus and cut it out in almost total darkness. I cannot disagree with the doctor’s finding that the organ was removed with some precision. So could the killer have been a highly trained medical man or someone with anatomical knowledge? This theory is just one of a number of which have been looked at for over 125 years. If the killer was such a person then why would he mutilate the body? This would surely make his removal of any organs much more difficult if the motive for the murder was to obtain an organ. This would apply if the killer were taking an organ away as a trophy, as some serial killers have done in the past. Or was as there a much simpler explanation? At this point in time my investigation had thrown up more questions than answers and still I had no clues as to the identity of the killer.

Following the murder of Annie Chapman local businessmen and residents alike were unhappy with the police handling of the murders and got together to form The Whitechapel Vigilance Committee.

The committee was unhappy with the level of protection that the community was receiving from the police, so it introduced its own system of local patrols, using hand-picked unemployed men to patrol the streets of the East End every evening from midnight to between four and five the next morning. They operated in similar fashion to the police with each man having their own designated beat to patrol. Each of these men received a small wage from the committee. The men were armed with a police whistle, a pair of galoshes and a strong stick and wore noiseless shoes. The committee itself met each evening at nine in The Crown public house, and once the public house closed at 12.30 am the committee members would inspect and join the patrols. These patrols were shortly to be joined by those of the Working Men's Vigilance Committee. The chairman was George Lusk, who on October 10th 1888 received the much talked about “From Hell” letter, which contained half a human kidney, supposedly taken from a later victim and allegedly sent by Jack the Ripper. The letter was believed to have been a prank involving medical students who would have had access to kidney specimens quiet easily.

Following the commission of the two murders which followed on September 30th, which I will discuss shortly, the committee members wrote to the government under Lord Salisbury in an attempt to persuade them to offer a reward for information leading to the apprehension of the killer. When the Home Secretary Henry Matthews refused, the committee offered its own reward. The committee also employed two private detectives, Mr. Le Grand (or Grand) and Mr. J. H. Batchelor, to investigate the murders without the involvement of the local police. Both of these persons I will discuss at length later.

ELIZABETH STRIDE

Elizabeth Stride a forty-five-year-old prostitute was the next victim and was the first victim of the so-called “double event”. Her body was found in Dutfield’s Yard, which adjoins the International Workers Club in Berner Street, at about 1.00am on the night of 30th September 1888, by a salesman returning with his pony and cart. She died from a single cut to her throat, which severed the carotid artery and she bled to death. This wound was believed to have been made by a small knife. There were no other wounds found on her body. Speculation at the time suggested that the killer was disturbed and many modern-day researchers also subscribe to that view.