19 September 1888
While passing through Down street, Piccadilly, at about three o'clock this morning, a police constable of the C Division found a woman lying on the pavement. Her face was covered with blood and she appeared to be in a very exhausted condition. The constable at once removed her to St. George's Hospital. She was placed under the care of one of the house surgeons. It was then found that the poor woman's face was severely cut and bruised, although no serious results are anticipated from the injuries.
The unfortunate woman has not yet been able to make a clear statement, but it is understood that while she was walking along Down street, this morning, she was attacked by a man whom she does not know. He struck her across the face with a stick which he carried in his hand, and then ran away. the police are making inquiries with a view to discover the whereabouts of her assailant. The woman's name is Adelaide Rutter, and she lives at 21 Stangate street, Westminster.
LUDWIG NOT THE MAN
STILL WITHOUT A CLUE
The Whitechapel murders are still a profound mystery. The sane or maniac criminal has not yet been arrested, for the Police have satisfied themselves, from inquiries made, that the German Ludwig, alias Weitzel, who was charged with attempting to stab a man with a penknife, could not have killed either of the unfortunate East end women whose death has cause so much apprehension to Whitechapel residents and anxiety to the police authorities. "Nothing to work upon" - an official term for absence of clue - is said to account for the non-success in tracing the murderer.
Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, has had another consultation with the police authorities respecting certain theories advanced. There are three points upon which there is agreement - that Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view; that the poor creature was murdered in the yard, and not in a house, as had been at one time suggested; and that the person who committed the deed was a man with some knowledge of human or animal anatomy.
The landlord of the hotel in Finsbury where the man Weitzel stayed at various times, has made the following statement to a representative of the Press Association this morning:- "I must say I have been very suspicious of the man since the last murder at Whitechapel. On the day after that event, that is Sunday, he called here about nine o'clock, in a very dirty state, and asked to be allowed to wash. He said he had been out all night, and began to talk to me about the Spitalfields affair. He wore a felt hat, a dirty greyish suit, and yellow seaside slippers. He brought with him a case of razors and a large pair of scissors, and after a time he wanted to shave me. I did not like the way he went on, and refused. Previous to this, I had not seen him for about eighteen months, and he made most contradictory statements as to where he had been. I did not see whether he had any blood on his hands, as has been said, for I did not watch him very closely, and wanted to get him out of the place as soon as possible."
"He is," added the landlord, "a most extraordinary man, is always in a bed temper, and grinds his teeth in rage at any little thing which puts him out. I believe he has some knowledge of anatomy, as he was for some time an assistant to some doctors in the German army, and helped to dissect bodies. He always carries some razors and a pair of scissors with him, and when he came here again on Monday night last he produced them. He was annoyed because I would not him sleep here, and threw down the razors in a passion, swearing at the same time. If there had been a policeman near I should have given him into custody. I noticed on this occasion a great change in his dress. Whereas on the former visit he looked very untidy, he was this time wearing a top hat and looked rather smart. He has told me that he has been living in the West end, but I believe he is well known at the cheap lodging houses in Whitechapel. On Monday last he remained here will about one o'clock, and I then turned him out, as he is a very disagreeable fellow, and very dirty in his habits. The police have not been to see me yet about him."
REFUSING TO OFFER A REWARD
This morning a meeting of the Vigilance Committee, of which Mr. Lusk is president, met again at 74 Mile end road, for the purpose of receiving the reports of their honorary officers in the matter. From the statements of Mr. Aarons, Mr. B. Harris, Mr. Cohen, and the president himself, there appeared to be a general belief that a substantial Government reward would bring about the apprehension of the murderer. The secretary said that on the 15th inst. the Committee sent a letter to the Home Secretary on the subject, which was to induce him to offer a reward, or to augment their fund. The following reply had been received:-
Whitehall, 17th Sept., 1888
Sir - I am directed by the Secretary of State to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 16th inst., with reference to the question of the offer of a reward for the discovery for the perpetrators of the recent murders in Whitechapel; and I am to inform you that, had the Secretary of State considered a proper one for the offer of a reward, he would at once have offered one on behalf of the Government; but that the practice of offering rewards for the discovery of criminals was discontinued some year ago, because experience showed that such offers of reward tended to produce more harm than good, and the Secretary of State is satisfied that there is nothing in the circumstances of the present case to justify a departure from this rule.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
G. Leigh Pemberton
LIVELY EPISODE AT THE INQUEST
DR. PHILLIPS' EVIDENCE
PORTIONS OF THE BODY MISSING
The resumed inquiry into the circumstances of Annie Chapman's death at 29 Hanbury street, was held this afternoon, at the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel road, before Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, who was accompanied by his deputy, Mr. George Collier. Chief Inspector West, Inspector Abberline, Inspector Helson, and Inspector Chandler represented the police.
Eliza Cooper, living at 35 Dorset street (a common lodging house), Spitalfields, said she had been lodging there for five months. On the Saturday before Annie Chapman's death, witness lent a piece of soap to the deceased. Ted Stanley was then present. On the following Tuesday witness asked Mrs. Chapman for the piece of soap lent her. Then they went to a public house, and a quarrel ensued.
Did you strike her? - Yes, on the left eye and also on the head.
When did you last see her alive? - On the Wednesday, 15th of September. She was then wearing three rings on the third finger of the left hand.
Were they gold? - No, brass - all three. She has never had a gold wedding ring to my knowledge.
Did you know of anyone else besides Stanley with whom she associated? - She associated with several others besides Stanley.
By the Jury - I could not say that any of the men are missing.
Dr. G.B. Phillips, re-examined, deposed - On the last occasion I mentioned that there were reasons why I thought the perpetrator of the murder caught hold of the woman's throat. On the left side, below the lower jaw, are three scratches, one and a half to two inches below the lower lobe of the ear, and going in the contrary direction to the incision in the throat. These are of recent date. The abrasions are on the left side, and on the right side are corresponding bruises. I washed the bruises, and they became much more distinct, whereas the bruises mentioned in my last evidence remained the same. The woman had been seized by the chin while the incisions in the throat had been perpetrated.
Dr. Phillips then paused, and said that, in the interests of justice, he thought it would be better not to give the full details.
The Coroner - We have to decide the cause of death, and have a right to hear the particulars. Whether that evidence is made public rests with the Press. I may say that I have never heard of any evidence being kept back before.
Dr. Phillips - I am, of course, in the hands of the Court. What I was going to detail took place after death.
The Coroner - That is a matter of opinion, Doctor. Medical men often differ, you know.
Dr. Phillips repeated that he did not think the details should be given. Justice might be frustrated and (glancing at some ladies and boys in the Court) -
The Coroner remarked that justice had had a long time to solve the case; but he certainly thought that ladies and boys should leave the room.
The Foreman - We are of opinion that the evidence the doctor wishes to keep back ought certainly to be given.
The Coroner said he had delayed calling the evidence in order that it might not interfere with justice; but justice had had about a fortnight to avenge itself.
Dr. Phillips - But it will not elucidate the cause of death.
The Coroner (warmly) said he must have the evidence.
The Court was then cleared of ladies and boys.
Dr. Phillips (missing) - The abdominal wall had been removed in three portions, two taken from the anterior part, and the other from another part of the body. There was a greater portion of the body removed from the right side than the left. On placing these three flaps of skin together, it was evident that a portion was wanting. I removed the intestines as I found them in the yard. The mesentery vessels were divided through. The large intestine remained in situ, but cut through with a keen incision transversely. (Further details were given, which created a great sensation, the doctor asserting that other portions of the body were missing.)
It was evident, continued the witness, that these absent portions, together with the incision in the large intestine, were the result of the same excising power. Thus I consider the weapon was from five to six inches long, and the appearance of the cuts confirm to me in the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the structures of the neck, must have been of a very sharp character. The mode of removal of the abdominal wall indicated a certain anatomical knowledge; but the incision of certain viscera conveyed to my kind a greater anatomical knowledge. It is only an inference, but I think I ought to mention it, that the early removal of the intestines in the yard was necessary to enable the operator to effect other incisions of certain organs.
The Coroner - How long did it take to inflict all these injuries?
Dr. Phillips - I could not have performed the removal in under a quarter of an hour.
In reply to other questions, Dr. Phillips said that had he to excise the portions in a deliberate way, as a surgeon, it would have taken him an hour to remove them.
By the Jury - Witness, at an early stage, gave his advice to the Police that it would be useless to photograph the retina of the woman's eyes to see what was the last object retained on them. He also advised that bloodhounds would be of no use. The appearance of the dead woman's face was consistent with partial suffocation.
Elizabeth Long, Church row, Whitechapel, stated that on Saturday morning, the day of deceased's death, she was passing down Hanbury street, to go to Spitalfields Market, at half past five o'clock, when she saw a man and a woman on the pavement. The man's back was turned towards Brick lane and the woman's towards Spitalfields Market. They were standing a few yards from No. 29 Hanbury street, the Brick lane end. Witness saw the woman's face. She had seen the body in the mortuary and was quite sure that it was the same.
Witness could not see the man's face. She noticed that he was dark, and had a brown hat turned up at the side. It was a brown "deerstalker." Witness thought his coat was dark. It was a man who looked to be over 40 years of age. He was a little taller than the deceased.
Did he look like a working man? - He looked like a foreigner. he was dark.
Did he look like a dock labourer? - What I should call shabby genteel. They were talking loudly. He said to her, "Will you?" and she said, "Yes."
Was that all? - Yes.
Did you see where they went to? - No. I went to my work, and did not look back. I saw nothing to make me think they were the worse for drink.
Was it not unusual to see a man and a woman, talking together at that hour of the day? - I see a lot of them sometimes talking at that hour.
(The report will be continued.)
Sir - If the initiatory punishment for crime of a description bordering little short of manslaughter - or, maybe, murder - is one of 20s. or seven days' imprisonment, need wonder be aroused at the state of things existing in the East end of London? Yet so it is. In your issue of last evening I read that a passer-by saw a ruffian kicking a man on the ground in the most violent manner, and, on being asked if he intended to kill him, commenced a most savage assault on his interrogator, and, after a time, was captured and conveyed to the station. On his appearance before the Thames Police Magistrate (whose name was not given by you) a fine of twenty shillings was meted out to him, with the alternative of seven days. Should not some scale be framed by the Legislature to prevent the ridiculously disproportionate sentences being passed for precisely similar offences, and not left to the whim of a capricious or weak Magistrate. But one, and only one, remedy - at least, an effectual one - is the administration of the cat for all cases of street violence, where no provocation has been given; and in lieu of 20s. the scoundrel should have had three months' in hard labour, with a refresher of twenty five lashes ere he again emerged into the outer world.
Forest gate, Essex, Sept. 18.