10 November 1888
London, Saturday, November 10.
Yesterday morning it was discovered that another horrible murder had been committed at Whitechapel. The victim has been identified as Mary Jane Kelly, 26 years of age, who lived for some time with a man named Barnet, otherwise Danny. According to an account on which reliance has been placed, Kelly was seen late on Thursday night with a respectably dressed man. Yesterday morning her body was found in a room she occupied at Dorset street, Spitalfields, even more shockingly mutilated than the bodies of the victims at Mitre square, Berner street, and Hanbury street. The murder was discovered by a rent collector, who, being unable to gain admittance, looked through the window. The police were soon on the spot, but could obtain no clue to the murderer, the circumstances of the crime being as mysterious as any of the series lately committed in the neighbourhood.
Mr. Conybeare - I beg to ask the Home Secretary whether he has seen by the evening papers of today that another terrible murder has been committed in East London; and whether he does not think it is time to replace Sir Charles Warren by some other officer who will investigate these crimes. (Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!")
The Speaker - Order! order! The hon. gentleman must give notice of that question in the usual way.
Mr. Conybeare - I now give notice of it.
The Speaker - the hon. gentleman must give it at the table and not by motion. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. C. Graham - I wish to ask whether it is true that Sir. C. Warren is in St. Petersburg?
Mr. W.H. Smith - No, sir, it is not.
Whitechapel has on horror's head horrors accumulated. Another woman has been murdered and mangled, within a stone's throw of the places where women were murdered and mangled on the 7th of August, the 31st of August, the 8th of September, and not far from the scene of either of the murders and mutilations of September the 30th. This latest murder far surpasses in hideous brutality any of the crimes which went before it. The mutilations are more wild and wanton and ghastly. The murderer, whoever he may be, would seem to have taken a positive delight in cutting and carving at the body of his victim. But although there was more hewing and hacking than in any of the former murders, yet it is almost indisputably evident that this latest crime belongs to the same class as the crimes which went before it. The same kind of mutilation which put the trade mark of the assassin on other corpses is shown in the body of the young woman who was murdered yesterday. Of course we do not suggest that this is any conclusive evidence that this murder was done by the hand which may have committed some or all of the other crimes. There is a ghastly imitativeness in crime, a horrible "fashion" which may be set going in murder, and which reveals itself with the mechanical servility of any other imitativeness and any other fashion. A brutal man getting into a furious quarrel with a woman in some wretched slum of the East end might have been content a few months ago with kicking her to death, or cutting her throat. Now, however, when such a man has quarrelled with a woman and killed her, it is quite possible that he will not be satisfied until he has followed the new Whitechapel mode, and gashed and disembowelled her. Therefore it is not to be hastily assumed that all the murders were done by the one hand, or that the last murder was the work of the same criminal as any of the former. What we are fairly warranted in believing is that it is a crime which comes of the same impulse; which would not have been committed in such a way of the preceding crimes had not given it inspiration. The natural inclination of everybody would be to hope that the murders and the mutilations are the work of some solitary wretch with a positive mania for women's blood. It would be better that such were the explanation than to have to believe that one murderer hacked a woman to pieces, and that several other murderers followed and improved upon his example. Nothing certainly in the history of crime has ever happened in this country which could be compared in horror and hideousness with this succession of Whitechapel slaughters.
It is well to trace back this recent history of crime in the East end. It began last Christmas week, when a woman was found bleeding and mangled in one of the poorest streets of Whitechapel. She was barbarously wounded, and in a manner somewhat like that which has characterised all the subsequent murders. She lived, if we are not mistaken, long enough to say that the crime was the work of several men. No trace of any criminal was found. The murder did not attract much attention at the time. Its very hideousness prevented the publication of full details, and the ordinary reader of newspapers learned little more than the fact that a woman had been killed somewhere down Whitechapel way. Unhappily such an event as that is not so uncommon as to startle London from its propriety; and although, if the whole story had been told, the public might have been stirred up to serious alarm at the condition of things in the East end, yet as the whole story was not told it was not generally supposed that any novelty in crime had been started. About Easter time another murder was committed in the same region which appeared to belong to the newly invented order of assassination. Early in August a woman was found dead on the landing of some model dwellings known as George yard Buildings, Spitalfields. This poor creature was found to have been pierced with no less than thirty nine wounds, most of which were in and about the abdomen. There were in this case evidences of deliberation very much like in some respects to those which presented themselves in more recent instances. Then came the murder of August 31; the murder of September 7th, a mere duplicate of the preceding crime; and then followed quickly the two slaughter deeds of September 30. One of the victims of September 30 had been dealt with by the murderer after the fashion of the earlier sufferers. In the case of the other woman the work of mutilation had been begun, but not finished. In the murder of yesterday the mutilating business was carried farther, and to all appearance done more deliberately, than in any former instance. In most, in nearly all, of these crimes we see certain common features. The woman is killed in the first instance by the cutting of her throat. She has no time to resist or even to scream. Then the assassin has her, to use a famous phrase employed for quite a different purpose, "like a corpse on the dissecting table," and he gashes her body at his deliberate pleasure.
The first of the crimes we have mentioned would appear from the woman's own account to have been the work of several men. With regard to all the others, such evidence as can be collected, or the fact that little or no evidence of any kind can be got at, would seem to show that in each case not more than one criminal could probably have been engaged. Five of the murders, including that of yesterday, may be generally described as belonging to just the same order; the same way of killing first; the same sort of deliberate mutilation afterwards; only that in yesterday's crime, as we have said, the hideous completeness of the work surpassed all preceding attempts. We have, then, the grim fact to face that within eight weeks five women have been murdered in the same way, and mangled in the same way, within a small area of the East end of London. The attention of the police authorities has been directed to that limited area for weeks and weeks back. The whole neighbourhood has been thrown into alarm and consternation. Every man and woman in the entire region must have been aroused to watchfulness and to activity. Yet the murders have been going on just the same - and we do not hear of any clue to the perpetrator of the latest many more than to the perpetrator of the earliest. If we are to accept what is certainly the general opinion, that the last five murders at least are the work of one hand, then the wonder becomes all the greater that one man can keep on doing such things, deed after deed, without being discovered. That such a man should again and again succeed in entrapping a woman into some lonely place and there slaughter her and yet never be seen, never be noticed, never be suspected by any one because of blood marks on his hands or his clothes, would certainly seem to border on the miraculous. Of course there is the other possibility to which we have already drawn attention, that some at least of the later crimes may have been the mere outcome of man's perverted imitativeness. The newspapers have been full of cases of men who threatened their wives, or their sweethearts, or women who were neither wives nor sweethearts, that they would treat them in the Whitechapel way. Only yesterday or the day before there was reported the case of a man who declared that he was willing to give ten shillings to any one who would rid him of his wife by the Whitechapel process. Practical jokers in the East end have frightened woken almost out of their senses by brandishing knives and proclaiming themselves to be Jack the Ripper. One such frolic actually caused a poor nervous woman to lose her life. While a mania of this kind is in the air we may expect to find mimicry take the form of earnest as well as of jest. But however the crimes are wrought, the fact remains that while the police and public, terribly forewarned, are on the look out for one particular sort of crime in one particular locality the crime goes on all the same, and the criminal withdraws himself form all eyes as securely as though he possessed the charm which could make him invisible at will.
A WOMAN FEARFULLY MUTILATED
STATEMENTS BY ACQUAINTANCES OF THE DECEASED
ARREST OF A MAN ON SUSPICION
Yet another addition to the long list of Whitechapel tragedies, and still no the faintest clue to the perpetrator! While London was decking itself in flags and garlands of flowers, and preparing for a day of festivity, in which thousands of the poor were charitably invited to join, almost in the midst of the preparation a deed was being done of which one can think only with shuddering horror. While the first magistrate of the City was proudly moving through the streets in stately pomp to pay homage at the shrine of Justice, the dreary raven cry of the newsboys was announcing, "Another horrible murder and mutilation in Whitechapel!" and this, there is every reason to believe, by the miscreant who has so long laughed at Justice, and has dealt blow after blow with the malignity and the mysterious impunity of a fiend. The murder discovered yesterday morning differs from those that have preceded it only in apparently having been carried out with the entire deliberation permitted by the seclusion of a private room, and therefore with more ghastly completeness than before. This latest tragedy has taken place in the same unfortunate locality, Dorset street, lying almost under the shadow of Spitalfields Church. Hanbury street, the scene of one of the previous murders, lies just a short distance off the opposite side of Commercial street, and this site will be found to be, roughly speaking, about midway between Hanbury street and Mitre square, on the other side of Bishopsgate street. It is a short street, composed largely of common lodging houses, in one of which Annie Chapman, a previous victim, used sometimes to lodge. About half way down this street on the right hand side is Miller's court, the entrance to which is a narrow arched passage, and within a few yards of which, by the way, last night there loomed grimly through the murky air a partly torn down bill announcing a reward of £100 for the discovery of the murderer on the last occasion. There are six two roomed houses in Miller's court, all of them owned by a grocer whose shop in Dorset street forms one corner of the entrance to the court. Mr. McCarthy, the proprietor of this shop, has no hesitation in avowing his knowledge that all his six houses were tenanted by women of a certain class. They were let out in separate rooms "furnished," that is to say, there is in each of them a bed and a table, and, perhaps, one or two odds and ends, all of the roughest and most trumpery description, since if any of the things had any appreciable value in the market they would be certain to disappear. For these rooms rents are supposed to be paid daily, but of course they will sometimes get a good deal in arrear. This was the case with one of the tenants, who had occupied a ground floor room on the right hand said of the court for about twelve months. Her name was understood to me Mary Jane Kelly, and she was believed to be the daughter of a man occupying a responsible position in some ironworks in the neighbourhood of Carmarthen. She was about twenty four years of age, and till last Tuesday she had been living with a man named Joseph Barnet, variously described as a fruit hawker in the streets and a labourer in Billingsgate Market. This man, it is said, had been a soldier, and had cohabited with Kelly till a week or ten fays ago, when a quarrel took place and the man left her. Yesterday morning she was as much as fourteen shillings in arrear with her rent, and the landlord sent one of his men about eleven o'clock to see what he could get. The door was fastened, not that it had been locked from the inside, but having a catch lock, the person who had gone out last had merely slammed the door behind him, and it had thus become fastened. The man, failing to get any answer by knocking, went to the window, which had been broken and patched by rags for some time past, and on pushing the rags aside was startled by the sight of blood. He ran back in some alarm to the shop and told Mr. M'Carthy, his employer, what he had seen, and the two returned. It soon became evident to them that another murder had been committed, and they instantly ran for the police. Officers were at once on the spot, and a communication was made to Dr. Phillips, of Spital square, the divisional surgeon, who arrived within ten minutes or so of the discovery of the affair - at about a quarter past eleven, that is to say. It is understood that one of the first steps taken was to despatch a telegram to Scotland yard giving information of the occurrence, and intimating that everything had been left absolutely untouched in order to facilitate the employment of bloodhounds if it were thought expedient to try them. Though Superintendent Arnold, of the H Division, and several detective officers had promptly arrived, the door of the woman's room remained unopened. In reply to the message informing the authorities of Scotland yard of the occurrence, a message was received saying that the dogs would be sent, and accordingly, by the imperative orders of the divisional surgeon, all pedestrians were rigorously forbidden to approach anywhere near the house in which the body lay, and cordons of police barred the way even into the street from which Miller's court opens. These precautions against destroying any scent which might possibly prove efficacious in tracking the criminal were maintained till a second telegram from headquarters was received stating that the dogs were not to be sent, and the police cordon was then withdrawn from the outer street, though the public were still excluded from the court, while the door was broken open and a closer examination of the body was made.
Dr. Phillips had by this time been joined by other medical gentlemen, including Dr. Dukes and Dr. Bond, of Westminster Hospital. The spectacle that was presented on the door being thrown open was ghastly in the extreme. The body was so horribly hacked and gashed that, but for the long hair, it was scarcely possible to say with any certainty that it was the body of a woman lying entirely naked on the wretched bed, with legs outspread and drawn up to the trunk. The ears and nose had been slashed off, the flesh cut from one cheek, and the throat cut through to the bone. In addition to this, one breast had been removed, the flesh roughly torn from the thigh, and the abdomen ripped as in previous cases, several of the organs having been removed from the trunk and laid on the table beside the bed. It was stated in some of the evening papers that the particular organ missing in two previous murders was also found to have been abstracted in this case also. That, however, is not the case. Small portions of the body are missing, but that, it is somewhat enigmatically stated, can be accounted for. In addition to the various mutilations this described there were miscellaneous cuts and slashes about the person of the unfortunate young woman, as though her fiendish assailant, having exhausted his ingenuity in systematic destruction, has given a few random parting strokes before pocketing his weapon and going out into the night.
That last expression, however, suggests the question as to when the deed could have been done. Strictly speaking, the only answer to this is that nobody knows. The only things that seem tolerably certain are that at half past ten on Thursday night she was alive and that at 11 o'clock yesterday she was found most foully murdered. When examined, all that could be said about the body was that death had apparently taken place some hours previously. The deceased was well known to those living round about, and one woman, who had shared her room with her, and only removed into an adjacent court on Thursday night, parted with her on Thursday night at half past ten o'clock. At about the same time she was seen and spoken to by another woman of the same unhappy class, with whom the deceased till quite recently seems to have shared her food just as with the other friend, a woman named Harvey, she had shared her room. Another statement was made last evening my a woman, who asserted that the deceased had been seen by her alive and well, and in company with a man, at the Ringers public house, at the corner of Dorset street, at half past ten yesterday morning. It seems certain, however, that this statement was either due to a mistake, or was one of those mischievous inventions which add so immensely to the labours and worries of the police. It may be regarded as practically certain that the poor woman's life was taken - as in the previous cases - during the night and the frightful hacking of the body was rendered practicable by the fact that the deed was done in a private room in an obscure court. As in each of the other cases, not a sound was heard, and the presumption is that the mode of procedure had been just as before. The victim and the assassin had probably gone to the room together, and without the slightest warning, and without giving a moment's opportunity for a single cry for help, the throat had been cut. Then the wretch fell to his hideous work of destruction, and made off at his leisure. "Is it not astounding that he could have gone in and out without being observed by somebody on the court?" was a question put to an intelligent labouring man, a denizen of the neighbourhood. "Not a bit," was the reply, "and you would understand it if you knew the place and the kind of people. Men go in and out there, and nobody thinks anything about them or takes notice of 'em. It's everybody for themselves there." Whatever may be the truth of the matter it seemed last night to be enshrouded in just as great a mystery as the preceding ones, and the anxiety and despondency of the police of the district were very evident. Two men were stationed at the head of the court to keep out all persons, but in the road - in Dorset street, that is - all day long there was a shifting throng of people largely composed of the roughest of women and labouring men. As the news spread numbers flocked in from distant parts of London, and throughout the evening it was with difficulty that the constables on duty could keep the anxious and excited people from massing together in impenetrable throngs, blocking both road and footways. The audacity of the assassin seemed to be a very general theme, and on all hands could be heard expressions of opinion that the probability was he was then among them, listening to their denunciations of him with diabolical enjoyment. This disposition of the crowd to look at each other for the criminal constituted a real peril for any stranger among them, the women specially making no secret of the longing they felt to lynch somebody, and it looked as though in one or two cases the police were compelled to make arrests to prevent something of the kind being attempted. One unfortunate foreigner, whose physiognomy was certainly not prepossessing, was taken into Commercial street Police station, when it turned out that that was the third time he had been arrested on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper, in the course of these murders. What with his odd face, his deprecatory shrugs and posturings, and his broken English as he tried to answer the interrogatories put to him, his examination was irresistibly comic. "How d'ye manage to get into trouble like this, then?" demanded an officer. "What do you do? What makes people pounce on you?" "Dat is ze zing," said the unlucky fellow spreading the palms of his hands and shrugging his shoulders. "Zat is what I like to know. Why do zey?" He had given a false name at his lodging house, but that, he tried to explain, was because "it eez not grand to leave in a lodging house." Later on hundreds of people came surging down Commercial street round a possy (sic) of police who guarded a tall, rather repellent looking man, who looked flushed and defiant and was evidently strongly believed by the mob to be the assassin. It went from mouth to mouth that he had blood on his clothes, and the dark and dogged look of the man very well bore out the idea of his having been taken with evidences of his guilt upon him. The crowd in the wildest excitement rushed down to the station, but of course were excluded, and what degree of importance was to be attached to the arrest is not known. At four o'clock yesterday afternoon the remains of the murdered woman were removed in a plain shell to the mortuary, there to await the inquest on Monday.
In the forenoon of yesterday the inhabitants of the East end of London were again thrown into a state of consternation by the discovery that another horrible murder had been perpetrated in their midst, the revolting character of which far exceeded any of the five others which have been committed in the neighbourhood since August last year. The victim is again a woman, and her assailant committed his demoniacal work under the woman's own roof, in, it is believed, broad daylight. Notwithstanding the comparative publicity which must have attended his movements, the murderer has managed to effect his escape without leaving behind him trace more tangible than he did six weeks ago, when Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were butchered in Berner street and Mitre square respectively. Dorset street, Spitalfields, the scene of the latest outrage, is the heart of a somewhat notorious neighbourhood. It is composed largely of lodging houses, which are frequented by persons of the lowest station in life, amongst them being thieves and some of the most degraded women. It was here that Annie Chapman, who was murdered in Hanbury street, on the 8th of September, lived, the scene of the present crime being a court directly opposite the house to which that unfortunate woman was in the habit of resorting. From Mitre square, the scene of one of the murders of September 30, Hanbury street is scarcely a stone's throw. The victim of yesterday's crime is a young woman named Mary Jane Kelly, aged 26, who had for some time lived with a man called Barnet, known also as Danny. Barnet worked sometimes at Billingsgate as a porter, and sometimes as a drover ot a hawker of oranges in the streets. They occupied a room in a house in Miller court, Dorset street, a turning out of Commercial street, Spitalfields. There are eight or ten small houses in the court, which is entered by a low archway and a narrow passage from Dorset street, and a forms a cul de sac. A small general shop in Dorset street adjoins the entrance to the court, tenanted by Mrs. M'Carthy, who also owns the houses in the court. Kelly appears to have tenanted a top room in one of Mrs. M'Carthy's houses. She had a little boy, aged about six or seven years, living with her, and latterly her circumstances had been so reduced that she reported to have stated to a companion that she would make away with herself, as she could not bear to see her boy starving. There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who states that at about half past 10 o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset street. Kelly informed her that she had no money, and it was then she said that if she could not get any she would never go out any more, but would do away with herself. Soon after they parted, and a man who is described as respectably dressed came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man accompanied the woman to her lodgings, which are on the second floor, the little boy being sent to a neighbour's house.
Nothing more was seen of the woman. Yesterday morning, it is stated, the little boy was sent back into the house, and the report goes that he was sent out subsequently on an errand by the man who was in the house with his mother. Confirmation of this statement is, it is true, difficult to obtain, and it remains in doubt whether any one really saw the unfortunate woman yesterday morning, although a tailor named Lewis says he saw Kelly come out about 8 o'clock, and go back. Another statement is to the effect that Kelly was seen in a public house about ten o'clock yesterday morning, and that she there met Barnet, and had a glass of beer with him. Just before eleven Mrs. M'Carthy with her son went to pay her customary visit for the purpose of collecting the day's rent. Young McCarthy appears to have first sent a man named Bower (sic) to the house, which, though entered from the court, is really a part of No 26 Dorset street. Bower failed to obtain an answer to his knocking, and, looking through the window, saw to his horror the woman lying on the bed in a state of nudity, horribly mutilated. He called McCarthy, who also looked through the window, and seeing that the body was cut about almost beyond recognition, he hurried away with Bower and ran to Commercial street Police Station, where they informed the police. Inspector Beck and Sergeant Betham, 31 H, who were in charge of about forty constables who had been held in readiness in anticipation of a possible Socialist disturbance attending the Lord Mayor's Show, at once proceeded to the scene of the murder, running to the house as quickly as they could. By this time the news had spread so rapidly that over a thousand persons were gathered in the street, and these were rapidly cleared away from the court and the side of Dorset street adjoining, while the inspector entered the house.
The house in which the murder was committed is entered by two doors situate on the right hand side of the passage, and has several rooms. The door first reached from the street leads to the upper rooms; the second opens directly into one room, which is situated on the ground floor. It was in this room that the murder was committed/ The fireplace faces the door, and a bed stands behind the door when it is placed open. When an entrance had been effected a terrible sight presented itself to the police officers. The body of the woman, perfectly nude, was stretched out on the little bed, the clothes on which were saturated with blood. The unfortunate woman had been cut and hacked by the assassin's knife in a manner which was revolting beyond all description. The fiendish assailant was not content with taking the life of his victim by severing the head from the body, but he had exercised an infernal ingenuity in despoiling the corpse of its human semblance. Both ears and the nose had been cut off, and the flesh of the cheeks and forehead peeled off; the breasts were cut away, evidently with a sharp knife, and placed on the table near the bed. The abdomen had been ripped open and disembowelled, portions of the entrails lying about the bed, the liver being placed between the legs. Both thighs had been denuded of flesh, laying bare the bones, and the excised portions laid on the table. Some of the internal parts of the body had been taken away, while, in addition, one arm was almost severed from the trunk, and one hand thrust inside the empty cavity of the abdomen. Medical assistance was immediately summoned, and a description of the discovery telegraphed to all the metropolitan police stations in the terse sentence: "The woman is simply cut to pieces." Within a very short time half a dozen cabs arrived in Dorset street from Whitehall, conveying detectives from the Criminal Investigation Department, among them being Inspectors Abberline and Reid. Never before had so many men been despatched to the scene of a murder from Whitehall. The scene in the narrow courtway leading to the house was one of extraordinary excitement. The whole space was closely packed with detective officers, and quite a small army of plain clothes constables was located in Dorset street within an astonishingly short space of time. Dr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of police, soon arrived, and was followed by Dr. Bond, of Westminster, divisional surgeon of the A Division, and Dr. J.R. Gabé, of Mecklenburgh square, and two or three other surgeons. They made a preliminary examination of the body, and sent for a photographer, who took several photographs of the remains. Meanwhile the excitement in the neighbourhood was spreading, until the dwellers in the immediate locality became worked up into a perfect frenzy. Women rushed about the streets telling their neighbours the news, and giving utterance in angry voices to expressions of rage and indignation. Notwithstanding the stolid reticence of all the police engaged at the scene, the main facts of the crime soon became common knowledge, and, spreading far and wide, drew a great concourse of people to the thoroughfare from which the court runs. Great efforts were made at first to keep the side of Dorset street clear in the vicinity of Miller court, in the expectation that bloodhounds might have to be employed; but though it is understood that a telegram asking for them was sent to Sir Charles Warren, they were not sent. Barnet was sent for, and he at once identified the body as that of Kelly, or "Ginger" as she was called owing to the colour of her hair. Barnet made a statement to the police, the purport of which did not come out. Sir Charles Warren did not visit the scene of the murder, but during the afternoon Colonel Monsell, chief constable of the district, and Chief constables Howard and Roberts went down and inspected the interior of the house. All the constables and detectives available were distributed throughout the district, and a house to house visitation was commenced. All who knew the deceased woman were interrogated as to the persons last seen in her company, without, however, eliciting any immediate clue.
At four o'clock in the afternoon the body was removed from Dorset street to Shoreditch Mortuary, which stands at the back of Shoreditch Church. The mutilated remains were placed in a coarse coffin, which had apparently been used on many previous occasions for the conveyance of the dead, and which was partially covered with a coarse canvas cloth. The straps of the coffin were sealed. The coffin was conveyed in a one horse ordinary furniture van, and was escorted by several constables under Sergeant Betham. A large crowd followed. At the mortuary another throng was waiting to see the coffin transferred to the building. The photographer who had been called in to photograph the room removed his camera from the premises at half past four, and shortly afterwards a detective officer carried from the house a pail, with which he left in a four wheel cab. The pail was covered with a newspaper, and was stated to contain portions of the woman's body. It was taken to the house of Dr. Phillips, 2 Spital square. The windows of the room where the crime was committed were boarded up and a padlock put on the door. The streets were patrolled by the police all last evening, and no one was allowed to loiter near the place. At night the neighbourhood was a scene of restless excitement and activity, the streets being filled with thousands of idlers, attracted doubtless by morbid curiosity.
What is believed to be an important fact transpired last evening, which, if true, puts a fresh complexion on the theory of the murders. It appears that the cattle boats bringing live freights to London are in the habit of coming into the Thames on Thursdays or Fridays, and lave again for the Continent on Sundays or Mondays. It has already been a matter of comment that the recent revolting crimes have been committed at the end of the week, and an opinion has been formed among some of the detectives that the murderer is a drover or butcher employed on one of these boats, of which there are many, and that he periodically appears and disappears with one of the steamers. This theory is held to be of much importance by those involved in this investigation, who believe that the murderer does not reside in the locality, or even in this country at all. It is pointed out that at the inquests on the previous victims, the coroners had expressed the opinion that the knowledge of physiology possessed by a butcher would have been sufficient to enable him to find and cut out the parts of the body which in several cases were abstracted.
The non appearance of the bloodhounds yesterday is accounted for by the fact that during recent trials in Surrey the animals bolted, and, it is understood, have not been recovered. The Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, who have recently relaxed their efforts, have called a meeting for Tuesday evening next. The excitement in the neighbourhood of Dorset street last night was intense. The police experienced great difficulty in preserving order, and one constable, who is alleged to have struck an onlooker, was so mobbed and hooted at that he had to beat a retreat to Commercial street Police Station, whither he was followed by a large crowd who were only kept at bay by the presence of about half a dozen stalwart constables who stood at the door, and prevented anyone from entering.
The Central News states, upon indisputable authority, that no portion of the murdered woman's body was taken away. A post mortem examination was held by the medical authorities summoned by the police, and the surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for, and placed as closely as possible in its natural position. In the case of the Mitre square victim, a woman picked up in the street and murdered in the open air, the murderer's motive in endeavouring to render the features unrecognisable can readily be understood. But he could scarcely suppose that the identity of a woman renting the room as a regular lodger, and well known in the immediate locality of the crime, would fail to be capable of comparatively easy proof. It is therefore assumed by experts that the cutting off of the nose and ears and the slashing of the cheeks in this case were done in a transport of mad ferocity to which monomaniacs are often subject. There is reason to believe that the injuries to the face were inflicted after the more elaborate mutilations of the remainder of the body. A man's pilot coat has been found in the murdered woman's room, but whether it belonged to one of her paramours or to the murderer has not been ascertained. the room in which the murder was committed was a tenement by itself, having formerly been the back parlour of No 26, Dorset street. A partition had been erected, cutting it off from the house, and the entrance door opened into Miller's court. The lock of the door was a spring one, and the murderer apparently took the key away with him when he left, as it cannot be found. The more the facts are investigated the more apparent becomes the cool daring of the murderer. The inquest will open on Monday morning.
The following statements were yesterday made:
John McCarthy, a provision dealer, residing at 27 Dorset street, and who is the landlord of No 26 in the same thoroughfare as the house in which the murder was committed, said:- "Mary Jane Kelly, the murdered woman, was a person about 25 years of age. She was an unfortunate. The last that was heard of her was at one o'clock this (Friday) morning, when she was singing in her room and appeared to be very happy. At eleven o'clock last night she was seen in the Britannia public house, at the corner of this thoroughfare, with a young man with a dark moustache. She was then intoxicated. The young man appeared to be very respectable and well dressed. About half past ten this morning I saw a man named Henry Bower go to Mary Jane Kelly's and ask for the rent she owed me. Bower went to the house, but filed to get any answer to his knocks. He then peered through one of the windows and saw the woman lying cut up on the bed. The bed was saturated with blood. Bower came and called me, telling me what he had seen, and we went and looked through the window. I cannot fully describe her injuries, for the sight was too much for me. She was quite naked. I noticed that both breasts were cut off, and that she was ripped up. The intestines were laid on the table; both ears were cut off, as also was the nose. The legs were cut to such an extent that the bones could be seen. Her face was one mass of cuts. We ran to the Commercial street Police station and gave information." In answer to questions as to whether the woman was married, McCarthy said deceased's husband was a fish porter, employed in Billingsgate, but in consequence of a quarrel between them four nights ago the man was now lodging in a boarding house in Bishopsgate street.
Mrs. Caroline Maxwell, of 14 Dorset street, the wife of a night watchman at Commercial chambers, a common lodging house able to shelter 244 persons, and which is opposite the scene of the murder, said:
"I have known the murdered woman well for the past six months. This (Friday) morning, as near as possible about half past eight, I saw Mary Jane (the murdered woman) standing outside the court. I said "What brings you out so early, Mary Jane?" and she answered "I feel very queer. I cannot sleep. I have the horrows (sic) of the drink on me, as I have been drinking this last day or two." I said, "Well, I pity you," and passed on. I then went to Bishopsgate; and on my return, just after nine o'clock, I saw "Mary Jane" talking to a man at the end of the street. Who he was I do not know. He was a short, stout man, about fifty years of age. I did not notice what he had on, but I saw that he wore a kind of plaid coat. I then went indoors to go to bed, as I had been on duty all night. "Mary Jane" (I only know her by that name) was a pleasant little woman, rather stout, fair complexion, and rather pale. I should say her age was about 23. I had no idea she was an unfortunate, for I never saw her with any one, nor have I ever seen her drunk. She was a very quiet young woman, and had been in the neighbourhood about two years. She spoke with a kind of impediment. She belonged, I think, to Limerick, and had evidently been well connected."
Joseph Barnet, an Irishman, at present residing in a common lodging house in New street, Bishopsgate, stated that he had occupied his present lodgings since Tuesday week. Previous to that he had lived in Miller's court, Dorset street, for eight or nine months with the murdered woman, Mary Jane Kelly. They were very happy and comfortable until another woman came to sleep in their room, to which he strongly objected. Finally, after the woman had been there two or three night, he quarrelled with Kelly, and left her. The next day, however, he returned, and gave her money. He called several other days, and gave her money when he had it. On Thursday night he visited her between half past seven and eight, and told her he was sorry he had no money to give her. He saw nothing more of her. He was indoors when he heard that a woman had been murdered in Dorset street, but he did not know at first who the victim was. He voluntarily went to the police, who, after questioning him, satisfied themselves that his statements were correct, and therefore released him. Barnet believed Kelly was an Irishwoman.
Mrs. Paumier, a young woman who sells roasted chestnuts at the corner of Widegate street, a thoroughfare about two minutes' walk from the scene of the murder, stated that about twelve o'clock that (Friday) morning, a man dressed like a gentleman came to her and said, "I suppose you have heard about the murder in Dorset street." She replied that she had, whereupon the man grinned and said, "I know more about it than you." He then stared into her face and went down Sandy's row, another narrow thoroughfare which cuts across Widegate street. When he had got some way off, however, he looked back, as if to see whether she was watching him, and then vanished. Mrs. Paumier said the man had a black moustache, was about five feet six inches high, and wore a black silk hat, a black coat, and speckled trousers. He also carried a black shiny bag about a foot in depth and a foot and a half in length. Mrs. Paumier stated further that the same man accosted three young girls whom she knows on Thursday night, and they chaffed him, and asked him what he had in the bag, and he replied, "Something that the ladies don't like." Mrs. Paumier told her story with every appearance of truthfulness. One of the young women she named.
Sarah Roney, a girl about 20 years of age, states that she was with two other girls on Thursday night in Brushfield street, which is near Dorset street, when a man, wearing a tall hat and a black coat, and carrying a black bag, came up to her and said, "Will you come with me?" She told him she would not, and asked him what he had in the bag, and he said, "Something the ladies don't like." He then walked away.
Another girl states that she knew the deceased two years ago. She was then living at Cooley's (sic) lodging house in Thrall street, Spitalfields. She walked the streets, and while living there met Barnett. She went to live with him in Dorset street. Kelly was a Welsh woman, and could speak Welsh fluently. The informant added that Barnett is a very inoffensive man, and occasionally works as a porter at Billingsgate Market, filling up his time by hawking fruit.
Morris Lewis, a tailor, states that he was playing "pitch and toss" in the court at nine o'clock yesterday morning, and an hour before that he had seen the woman leave the house and return with some milk.
Mrs. Prater, who occupies a room in 26 Dorset street, above that of the deceased stated that she had a chat with Kelly on Thursday morning. Kelly, who was doing some crochet work at the time, said, "I hope it will be a fine day tomorrow, as I want to go to the Lord Mayor's Show." "She was a very pleasant girl," added Mrs. Prater, "and seemed to be on good terms with everybody. She dressed poorly, as she was, of course, badly off."
A young woman named Harvey, who had slept with the deceased on several occasions, has also made a statement. She said she had been on good terms with the deceased, whose education was much superior to that of most persons in her position of life. Harvey, however, took a room in New court, off the same street, but remained friendly with the unfortunate woman, who visited her in New court on Thursday night. After drinking together they parted at half past seven o'clock, Kelly going off in the direction of Leman street, which she was in the habit of frequenting. She was perfectly sober at the time. Harvey never saw her alive afterwards. Hearing in the morning that a murder had been committed, she said, "I'll go and see if it is anyone I know," and, to her horror, found that it was her friend.
A man was arrested late last night in Whitechapel on suspicion of being concerned in the murder. He was given into custody by some women as being a man who had accosted them on the previous night, and whose conduct was suspicious. He was taken to Commercial street Police station, followed by an immense crowd.
Sandringham, Nov. 9.
The Prince of Wales celebrates the 47th anniversary of his birth at his Norfolk seat today in the usual manner. Their Royal Highnesses are entertaining the Duc D'Aumale and a number of friends. This morning the Prince of Wales, Prince Albert Victor, and the Duc D'Aumale, the Count Karolyi, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Count Gleichen, Prince Louis Esterhazy, Lord Rowton, Baron Ferdinand Rothschild, and other gentlemen have shot through the Woodcock Wood. The Princess of Wales and the ladies of the party joined the Royal sportsmen in the afternoon.
Lewis Crace, 37, an architect, of Nottingham place, Regent's park, was charged with stealing two silver spoons, the property of Dr. Forbes Winslow, of 14 York place, Baker street. The evidence was that a man went to Dr. Forbes Winslow's house on Monday evening last, and asked to see the doctor. He was told he was out of town, but as he said he came about an urgent case, his mother being in a dying state, he was asked into the house by the servant, and was seen my Miss Emma Winslow. The result of the interview was that Miss Winslow determined to send a telegram to the doctor, who was at Hayes Park, Middlesex, and left the room to go to one adjoining to write it out. The man obtained a few shillings from Miss Winslow. as in the hurry he had come without any, and then left the house. When he had gone Miss Winslow had a doubt whether he was not an impostor, and she and the servant examined the silver in the sideboard cupboard in the dining room, which room the man had been in. Two silver spoons were missed, and information was at once given to the police, with a description of the man. On Thursday afternoon a constable of the C Division saw Mr. Crace, wearing astrachan on his overcoat, and as his general appearance tallied with the description given by Miss Winslow he followed him, and took him to the police station on suspicion. There Miss Winslow and her servant identified Mr. Crace from amongst seven others as the man who they alleged had stolen the spoons. He was thereupon charged with the theft. Mr. Cooke having heard the case on Thursday evening, remanded the prisoner, offering to admit him to bail in two sureties of £40 each. Mr. Crace said he could say nothing more than that he knew nothing about the matter, as he was elsewhere at the time. Yesterday, about twelve o'clock, two gentlemen attended the court, and were accepted as bail, and some time afterwards Mr. Crace was liberated from Holloway Prison. Later in the afternoon an intimation was conveyed to Mr. Cooke by Detective Inspector Robson that a mistake had been made by the ladies, and they now had identified another person in custody at Southwark who bore a strong resemblance to Mt. Crace as the thief. Mr. Cooke called Miss Winslow and her servant into the witness box, and in reply to his questions elicited that the servant had been to Southwark as stated, and had found that she was mistaken as to Mr. Crace being the man. The man who came to the house was now in custody at Southwark. Inspector Robson said he had found that Mr. Crace is a gentleman of high respectability. Mr. Cooke said there had evidently been an error. He was glad to hear the explanation, although it was much to be regretted that the witnesses had made the statements they did when the case was before him on Thursday evening. Mr. Cooke called for Mr. Crace, who had been fetched top the Court, and at once discharged him.