Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files (6 page)

Long:
The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood
.

Coroner:
How came you to observe the writing on the wall?

Long:
I saw it while trying to discover whether there were any marks of blood about
.

Coroner
: Did the writing appear to have been recently done? - I could not form an opinion
.

Coroner:
Do I understand that you made a search in the model dwelling house?

Long:
I went into the staircases
.

Coroner:
Did you not make inquiries in the house itself?

Long
: No
.

As with the murders of Annie Chapman and Polly Nichols there are many similarities, which suggest all three were killed by the same hand. Having carefully reviewed all the facts surrounding the murder of Eddowes there are many issues which I would now suggest cast a major doubt about some of the previously accepted theories surrounding not only this murder and the murder of Chapman and Nichols, but all of the victims discussed up until now and those I will discuss later.

The post-mortem, which did not take place till twelve hours later, revealed that her kidney and uterus had been removed. The doctors at the crime scene found no evidence of any organs having been removed. Serious questions must now be asked as to whether the killer did actually remove those organs as has been suggested or whether there is a more plausible explanation, which would also relate to the removal of the uterus from Chapman.

I first looked closely at the times relative to the murder of Eddowes. Pc Watkins who found the body stated that he was in Mitre Square at 1.30am and saw or heard nothing. He stated he had his police lantern illuminated. He returned to the square at 1.44am. Fourteen minutes later and found the mutilated body of Eddowes in what was described as the darkest part of the square. At that time he saw or heard nothing.

A number of witnesses who had left a nearby club at 1.35am state they saw a female fitting the description of Eddowes talking with a male outside the entrance to Mitre Square at Church Passage, which is the entrance and exit furthest away from the entrance and exit from which Pc Watkins was using. If those witnesses are correct and they did see Eddowes with her killer, then that only leaves a nine-minute window before Pc Watkins returned. If Pc Harvey is correct then that time is foreshortened because he stated he went as far as Mitre Square at 1.40am. So in effect that only leaves approximately five minutes for the killer to carry out the murder and the mutilations and allegedly remove two vital organs with medical precision in almost total darkness.

As with the murder of Chapman we have a killer who goes with a prostitute to a dark and secluded location and kills and mutilates the body. The suggestion is then that with anatomical knowledge using what was described as a six-inch long bladed knife proceeds to remove a kidney and uterus. If organ harvesting was the motive for the murders then as I said previously, why mutilate the abdomen in such a way as to inhibit the removal of any organs? The same can be said for the suggestion that the organs were taken away as trophies.

The other important issue to consider is the time factor. Would the killer have been able to work within the five-minute time window?

From my limited medical knowledge I am aware that the kidney is a difficult organ to locate. It is to be found encased in renal fat. In the case of Eddowes it was her left kidney. I am reliably informed that a quick removal technique for the kidney would have been to locate the renal fat, take hold of it and simply tear it out. In this case that was not done. I therefore did not believe it possible for the killer to have removed the organs given the time, the location, and the light available to him to be able to effect such removals with some precision as is described.

I have no doubt that the organs from both Eddowes and Chapman were removed by someone with some anatomical knowledge, which is the conclusion the doctors came to. The question is where were they removed and by whom? I believe the answer is quite simple.

In 1888 medical sciences were less advanced than they are now and many areas of medicine were still being investigated. This research would have called for the use of organs and body parts, which had been for many years very difficult to acquire by conventional means. As a result in 1832 The Anatomy Act was passed allowing bona fide medical personnel, i.e. doctors, medical students, anatomists to go to mortuaries and freely obtain organs and in some cases a complete body for medical research.

Following the inquest of Chapman where it was disclosed that a mystery American had been looking to pay to acquire a uterus, it was therefore suggested that this could be the motive for her murder. The Pall Mall Gazette published a letter, which was obviously from someone within the medical profession the letter read:

“The only practical thing to be done is to keep a sharp lookout and to dismiss once for all the Coroner’s theory as to the motive of the murder. The Coroner seems to have been the innocent victim of a stupid hoax. If he had made enquiries of the sub curator of the pathological museum he would have discovered that the figure named is a quite preposterous and impossible price for the missing portion of the human body. It is best to get the plain facts plainly forth, and the following letter of prices current containing latest quotations for various parts of the human body suffices. The following are the prices, which we are paying at present for anatomical subjects
.

For one corpse complete £3.5shillings

For one thorax 5 shillings

For one arm, one leg, one head and neck, and one abdomen 15 shillings

“The prices refer to pickled dissecting room subjects. The organ removed by the murderer can be had for the asking at any post-mortem room 12 hours after death. This being so, what comes of the Coroner’s theory that the murders were committed in order to secure the bonus of £20 offered by the mythical American in question?

In the light of this it would be wrong to rule out the fact that the organs of Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes were expertly removed, not at the crime scenes by the murderer but after the bodies had been taken to the mortuary and before the post-mortems were carried out.

It is fact that both bodies were taken and left for many hours and left unattended before the doctors returned to conduct the post-mortems. It is also a fact that every morning there would be a constant stream of medical personnel who would visit the mortuaries seeking out specimens to take away for research.

By law of course the bodies of the victims should not have been touched or tampered with before the post-mortems, but in a mortuary containing many bodies some inside and some outside, it would not have been too difficult for someone with medical knowledge to quickly remove these organs, or to even perhaps pay the poor mortuary keeper to turn a blind eye in order to do so.

In the cases of Eddowes and Chapman the task would have been much easier as the abdomens of both had already opened by the killer. The end result would have been that the findings of the post-mortem would, quite naturally, have left everyone thinking that the killer had removed the organs at the murder scene, coupled with the belief that the killer had done so with some anatomical knowledge.

You may be asking why, if Chapman’s and Eddowes’ organs were removed, as I suggest, why weren’t any removed from the other victims? The answer is simple: these were the only two victims who were savagely mutilated to the extent that their abdomens were ripped open and their intestines removed. The other victims were not mutilated to this degree, so it would have been very difficult for anyone to remove the organs for fear of their absence being noted at the post-mortem. The bodies of Chapman and Eddowes were the only two bodies left unattended for long periods of time at the mortuaries.

There is one final important point to be mentioned with regards to the suggestion that the killer did remove the organs from Chapman and Eddowes and that is, it is a fact that Eddowes and Chapman were subjected to ferocious acts of mutilation committed in a frenzied attack. Having said that it is not logical for the killer having done all of that and then to suddenly compose himself sufficiently to be able to suddenly switch off, calm down to be able to remove these vital organs with medical precision. Further medical evidence would later come to light, which showed that the removal of the uteri from both victims was carried out in different ways, adding more weight to my theory.

The murder of Eddowes differs in a further respect from the previous murders discussed. After her body was discovered, just over an hour later there came to the notice of the police two pieces of what has been looked upon as “significant evidence”, which at the time was suggested as being material to the murder and has generally been accepted as so by many researchers up until the present day.

This “evidence” was found by a Metropolitan police officer Pc Long in a stairwell leading to dwellings in Goulston Street, a nine-minute walk from the Eddowes crime scene. Having examined all of this evidence carefully, I now suggest that perhaps the police and other experts have been wrong all this time about this “significant evidence”.

The first piece of “evidence” was a piece of apron, which was later matched to another piece of apron “found” on Eddowes. I use the word found as many researchers subscribe to the theory that Eddowes was in fact wearing an apron and the killer cut or tore a piece to take with him for the purpose of taking away the organs in, or for wiping his blood stained hands and knife on before depositing it in Goulston Street. The size of this apron piece has never been fully established, but is mainly referred to as a portion or a piece.

The apron piece found by Pc Long in Goulston Street has been described in different ways, by different people; both in official reports and in various newspapers of the day who reported on the inquest and these reports show many discrepancies and inconsistencies. The official reports are what should be accepted as being correct. The reports would have been in written form and would have been made out by the witnesses as soon as practicable after the event, when matters would have still been fresh in their minds. These reports would have been referred to by the witnesses at the subsequent inquest.

Pc Long’s official statement:
“I found a portion of a woman’s apron, there appeared blood stains on it, one portion was we
t.”

Pc Long as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report:
“I found a portion of white apron, there were recent stains of blood on it.”

Pc Long as quoted in The Times Inquest report:
“I found a portion of a woman’s apron, there were recent stains of blood on it, one corner was wet with blood.”

As far as his statement is concerned and the subsequent press reports there are several differences. All state that the apron piece had bloodstains on it. One suggests that a corner was wet with blood, and another simply states that one portion was wet.

Dr. Brown’s official statement:
“I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it, which had evidently been sewn to the piece I have. The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding. Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulston Street.”

Dr. Brown as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report:
“I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.”

Dr. Brown as quoted in The Times Inquest report:
“On the piece brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand of knife had been wiped on it.”

Dr. Brown in his official statement states that the apron piece was found with some blood on it and faecal matter. In the newspaper reports he states that it was spotted with blood, and smeared with blood on one side.

Several questions arise. When was the apron piece removed and by whom, and for what reasons? And how long had it been at the location where it was found? The police also believed the apron piece showed the direction in which the killer had escaped. Regardless of whether he had deliberately left it or accidentally dropped it. If the apron piece had been cut or torn by the killer why did he not retain it and send it to the press with the half kidney and the letter later sent to the press purporting to be from the killer. This would be very strong evidence in support of the letter being from the killer and the fact that he had removed the organs.

I must also ask why the killer would have cut off a piece of the apron. If it was for the reasons that have been suggested, there is no evidence of a similar act in any of the other murders. If it was to clean his knife with, he could have done that at the scene with one swift wipe across her clothing. If it was to clean his hands with, he could have done that at the scene without cutting off or tearing and taking away a piece of apron. Even if he did cut or tear it off, surely he would have discarded it long before reaching Goulston Street. He would not have wanted to be seen walking down the road in possession of incriminating evidence wiping his bloodstained hands, or a knife. Besides, the killer may have worn gloves and not needed to clean his hands.

So now another important question must now be asked. Was she or wasn’t she wearing an apron at the time of her murder? In Victorian times the women wore two different types of aprons, the first being the type mainly now worn in this day and age, which goes around the waist and is tied at the back with two strings. The other version was a full apron, which started around the neck and in length went down in equal distance to the full-length dresses women of that era wore.

However, Eddowes may well have not been wearing an apron, but simply during the time leading up to her murder been in possession of two separate pieces of old apron, which had originally come from an apron that was of the type which fitted around the waist with two strings attached.