Morning Advertiser (London)
Friday, 5 October 1888
THE WHITEHALL DISCOVERY.
The detective police yesterday actively continued their inquires, with the view of establishing the identity of the remains found in the vault of the new police barracks at Whitehall, but their efforts did not prove successful, and they do not anticipate any immediate discovery of importance. The fact that the arm found in the Thames, at Pimlico, on the 11th ult., belonged to the trunk discovered on Tuesday seems incontestably established. It was found to fit exactly into the right shoulder, and the piece of cord which, it will be recollected, was tied tightly round the upper part of the limb when taken out of the water, absolutely corresponds in colour, texture, and substance with that which was used to tie up the old skirt containing the decomposed body. The theory that the victim of the crime was a lady, or, at any rate, a person of good position, which has been asserted, is not much countenanced by the police or doctors. It is much more likely that she was a person of the unfortunate class, or a servant, for Dr. Neville, the acting divisional surgeon of the B division of police, in an interview with a representative for the Press, yesterday, adhered to the opinion that he had before expressed, that the hand showed indications of hard work, the skin being rough and hard, and the finger-nails begrimed with dirt. The limb had evidently been bound up in newspaper before being thrown into the river, for a small piece of the paper-which has been preserved-was still adhering to the string when it was discovered. No doubt, the action of the water had washed away the remainder. The medical men who made the post-mortem examination, it is said, are agreed that death took place about five weeks ago. Although the detailed result of the autopsy will be kept secret until the inquest on Monday next, the cause of death has been ascertained by Dr. Bond, who made a final examination of the remains on Tuesday night. The foregoing information was obtained from a reliable official source, with the further particulars that the head had been cleanly cut from the body by a very sharp instrument, and that the victim was a dark complexioned woman, presumed to be about 26 years of age, and in stature 5 ft. seven or eight inches. The actual cause of death was not, however, divulged.
The police, it is reported, have received information that on Saturday afternoon, at twenty minutes past five, a respectably-dressed man, about thirty-five years of age, was seen to climb over the hoarding from the works in Cannon-row, and to walk quickly away. He was not followed, nor were the police informed of the matter, because no importance was attached to it at the time. The police have sent a description of this man to all stations.
The City coroner, Mr. S.F. Langham, opened his inquiry yesterday at the City Mortuary into the death of Catherine Eddowes, who was murdered in Mitre-square early last Sunday morning. Generally speaking, the evidence given revealed no new facts, but the detailed and important testimony of Dr. Gordon Browne, the City Police surgeon, confirmed the rumour that, as in the case of Mrs. Chapman, an important internal organ had been removed by the murderer. The left kidney also had been cut out in a way which implied considerable anatomical knowledge and skill.
The evidence given yesterday by the surgeon to the City Police at the inquest upon the body of the woman murdered in Mitre-square directly connects the crime with those preceding it, and establishes it beyond doubt as the work of the same hand. The actual mutilations were even worse than those the coroner at the inquest respecting the Hanbury-street victim insisted upon being made public. In that case it was assumed that the one object of the assassin was to get at and carry away a certain portion of the human organism, and upon that assumption the now discarded theory of obtaining a supply for a medical market was advanced. The evidence in the Mitre-square case further discredits this theory, and goes to show that the aim was that of murdering women of a particular class, coupled with lust for mutilation. Not only were portions of the body taken away, but the face was barbarously hacked, for which there could have been no reason, unless that of prevention of identification, a consideration that, taking all the circumstances of the series of murders into account, was not likely to trouble the miscreant. It is obvious from what Dr. GORDON BROWN says that considerable anatomical skill was displayed in the mutilation. The cuts on the body were workmanlike cuts. They were not meaningless. The murderer did his work with professional certainty and rapidity. Without dwelling upon details it is clear that yesterday's evidence strongly fortifies, if it does not indisputably establish, the conclusion that the criminal is a skilled anatomist. If against this it be said that Dr. GORDON BROWN is of opinion that the knowledge shown in inflicting the mutilations is knowledge likely to be possessed by one accustomed to cutting up animals, we may remind the public that Dr. PHILLIPS, in the Hanbury-street instance, distinctly expressed the opposite opinion. It is among possessors of anatomical knowledge the police must look for their man. It is idle to speculate what the miscreant does with the portions of the body he carries away, how he manages to avoid self-betrayal, or to avert from him the suspicion of those among whom he is moving. His mania is of an incomprehensible order. We hope, at any rate, that he is not an Englishman. As Mr. EDWARD DILLON LEWIS, whose work in criminal jurisprudence entitles him to be heard with respect, has pointed out in a thoughtful and suggestive letter published in these columns yesterday, the mutilations savour of a foreign origin. The idea underlying them is utterly un-English. It is not in accordance with the criminal idiosyncrasies of our people, though, with Mr. DILLON LEWIS, we do not wish it to be inferred from this statement that we believe foreigners monopolise the worst forms of barbarity.
Sir CHARLES WARREN'S answer to the letter addressed to him by the Whitechapel Board of Works contains a reply to many unreasoning complaints with regard to the action of the police in the matter of the recent atrocities at the East-end. The board had passed a resolution calling upon the Commissioner of Police "so to regulate and strengthen the police force in the neighbourhood as to guard against any repetition of such atrocities." In passing this resolution the board was simply fulfilling a public duty, but it is easier to say what ought to be done than to indicate the way of doing it. The Commissioner of Police is responsible for the peace and order of the whole metropolis, that is to say, of every spot of ground, except the area included within the city of London, which is not more than fifteen miles distant from Charing-cross. As Sir CHARLES WARREN remarks, he has not a reserve of constables so numerous that he can greatly increase the strength of the force in Whitechapel without diminishing it to a dangerous extent elsewhere. The whole of London, with its wide-reaching suburbs, has to be considered, and it would be impossible to concentrate a very large force in Whitechapel without leaving other districts at the mercy of the criminal classes. This is so obvious that no one is likely to question it. There is a belief, however, that Sir CHARLES WARREN has introduced a new system, the result of which is that constables accustomed to particular beats have been replaced, their posts being filled by men unacquainted with the district. From the point of view of detective efficiency, nothing could be more objectionable than this, and Londoners in all districts will be glad to hear that the prevalent impression is unfounded. "The system at present in use," says the Commissioner, "has existed for the last twenty years, and constables are seldom or never drafted from their districts, except for promotion or some other particular cause." There are reasons, Sir CHARLES goes on to say, why changes of beats should be made; but the reasons on the other side are so cogent that they are not acted upon. With regard more particularly to the detective force, it is satisfactory to learn that arrangements have been made which lessen the necessity previously existing for transferring officers from districts with which they are thoroughly acquainted. There can be no doubt that, assuming ordinary efficiency, a constable is better placed for the detection of crime in a locality with which he is familiar than in another with which he is altogether unacquainted. Sir CHARLES WARREN assures the Whitechapel board in conclusion that he will be glad to give every consideration to any proposal which may be made to him for increasing the efficiency of the police arrangements in the district. This is all that the Commissioner can be reasonably asked to do. At a time like the present, when something like a panic possesses the public mind, especially in East London, people are apt to jump to the conclusion that somebody is to blame. The feeling is natural, but it should not be too readily entertained. The detection of crimes such as those which have recently horrified the community is necessarily a difficult task, and the public may fairly be expected to show some patience and forbearance with those whose business it is to cope with the difficulty.
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS.
INQUEST ON CATHERINE EDDOWES.
The excitement and indignation in the East of London were added to yesterday by the information which was made public at the inquest. Dr. Gordon Browne, the City police surgeon, was under examination for about an hour, and gave the results of the post-mortem examination, which, it was apparent, were not a little wearying to those present in court. When, however, he made the startling announcement that the same organ which had been found missing in Annie Chapman had been cut away from the body found in Mitre-square the flagging interest of the public revived. There had been a suspicion of this fact in consequence of the similarity in the wounds inflicted upon the woman identified as Kate Eddowes and the other woman, Annie Chapman. But the secret had been well kept, and it was not until just before the adjournment that Dr. Browne stated that the left kidney and the greater part of the other organ had been cleverly cut out, betokening that the murderer was well versed in anatomy. The witness, in his evidence, appeared to support the theory that the murderer, though not necessarily well versed in human anatomy, had gained a certain amount of skill by reason of his being a slaughterer of animals. Dr. Browne was emphatic in his assertion that the portions of the woman's body which had been removed could be of no use to medical research, so that the murderer's motive was all the more mysterious. Anyhow, the doctor's evidence furnishes a strong presumption that the hand which caused the death of the women in buck's-row and Hanbury-street (if not of the previous victims) was also responsible for the killing of Kate Eddowes in Mitre-square, and in all probability of Elizabeth Stride in Berner-street, although in the latter case he was disturbed before he could complete his work. The evidence of the man Kelly, who apparently is a hard-working man, sheds a lurid light upon common lodging-house life in the neighbourhood of Flower and Dean-street, Thrawl-street, Fashion-street, and the neighbouring thoroughfares. There was evident emotion in his voice as he told the coroner how he had lived on good terms with the deceased for seven years, and how they had worked and schemed together to make both ends meet. He stated that only two days before the murder, in order to get food, they decided to pawn the pair of boots which he was wearing, and that whilst the woman was getting half-a-crown for them he stood bare-footed outside the shop. With regard to the probable length of the inquest it is surmised that it will conclude at the next sitting on Thursday next. The closing hours of Wednesday night and the early dawn of yesterday proved an exciting time for the East-end population. Rumours of the most extraordinary character were flying about in all directions, and the effect upon the already excited public was very marked. Again and again the story went round that the much-sought-for criminal had been arrested, under circumstances which attested the gallantry of the police, the determination of the public, and the desperate character of the murderer. The result was that people's minds were inflamed to an extent scarcely to be credited by those who did not witness the scenes enacted in some of the thoroughfares east of Aldgate. The rumours, however, if sensational, were for the most part as ridiculous as they were untrue. Thus, late at night, it was widely reported that the murderer had been captured in Ratcliff-highway while attempting to kill an unfortunate, and that in the scuffle a police-officer had been stabbed. Such firm ground did this rumour gain that even the authorities at Old Jewry deemed it desirable to send Detective-sergeant Child to the Leman-street police-station to inquire into the truth of the statement. That officer was speedily able to convince himself of the gross misrepresentations which were circulating far and wide. What actually occurred was this. Sergeant Adams, of the H division, while on duty on Wednesday night, between nine and ten, in the Ratcliff-highway, heard a woman shouting for help in an adjacent court. Proceeding in the direction whence the cries came, he met a man, evidently a foreigner, hurrying away from the court. Turning his bullseye on the man, the sergeant jumped to the conclusion that he bore a resemblance to the man who is supposed to have been seen in the company of the unfortunate woman Stride on Saturday evening. The stranger evaded the officer's questions as to what he was doing there, but volunteered the information that he was a Scandinavian, and intended to sail for America on the following day. Sergeant Adams deemed the circumstances sufficiently suspicious to warrant his taking the fellow into custody, and marched off he accordingly was to the Leman-street police-station. There he was searched, but no weapons of any kind were found upon him. Questioned by the inspector in charge the stranger stated that he was a Maltese by birth, and again said that he was starting for America on the following day and gave his name and address without hesitation. The latter being found on inquiry to be correct, he was liberated early yesterday morning. The Englishman who was arrested in Shadwell on Wednesday night was also able to furnish the police with satisfactory proofs of his innocence, and was released an hour or two afterwards. By far the most sensational feature in a night of alarms was the elaborate and detailed rumour which, traveling westward, reached the purlieus of the newspaper world just before midnight. It was alleged that at about eleven o'clock a man, believed to be the author of the diabolical outrages of Sunday last, lured an unfortunate woman into one of the side alleys off Union-street, Whitechapel, and there attempted a repetition of his revolting practices. The would-be victim, however, so the story went, was sharp enough to detect in time the glitter of a steel blade, and shrieked for assistance. The miscreant, it was alleged, took to his heels, pursued by a man and some two or three women. The male pursuer almost immediately came up with the supposed murderer, and succeeded in knocking a knife, with which he was armed, out of his hand. The man, however, evaded his grasp, darted into the roadway, jumped into a passing cab to the amazement of "cabby," and shouted to that confused worthy to drive him "as hard as he could wherever he liked." The cabman started off as desired, but in a moment or two his vehicle was surrounded by police and a howling mob. A constable jumped in and secured the occupant, who was driven off to Leman-street. This was the story, which turned out to be a canard. The following were the circumstances which gave rise to it. At about eleven o'clock on Wednesday night a well-dressed man walked out of the "Three Nuns" in Aldgate, followed by a woman, who shouted to those around that he had molested and threatened her in the street. While she was telling her story to a rapidly collecting crowd, the stranger hailed a cab, got in, and drove off. A hue and cry was at once raised, and the crowd rushed pell-mell after the vehicle along the Whitechapel High-street. The cab was soon stopped, and a constable entered and took the occupant to Leman-street. The woman also went to the station, and stated that the man had molested her in the street, and when she refused to have anything to do with him, had threatened her with physical violence. This statement was corroborated by a man who apparently had followed behind the couple during the altercation which took place between them, but the prisoner angrily and emphatically denied the accusation. However, he was duly charged, searched, and moved to a cell, pending inquiries. While there his attitude was one of defiance, and he declined to give the police his address. This resulted in his incarceration for the rest of the night, and it was not until half-past nine o'clock yesterday morning, by which time the police had satisfied themselves as to his identity, that he was released.
Our Armagh correspondent telegraphs:-At a late hour to-night (Thursday) the police arrested a man who gave his name as "Leather Apron," and lodged him in the barrack. The police found upon him a knife covered with blood, and a letter, apparently written in blood, and addressed to Dr. Logue, the Roman Catholic primate. When arrested he showed fight, and it was with difficulty that the police locked him up.
The inquest respecting the death of the woman whose body was found in a mutilated state in Mitre-square, Aldgate, early on Sunday morning, was opened yesterday morning in the court of the City Mortuary, Golden-lane, before Mr. S.F. Langham, City coroner, and a jury.
Colonel Sir J. Fraser, Commissioner of the City Police; Major Smith, Assistant Commissioner; and Superintendent Foster appeared on behalf of the police.
The City Solicitor watched the inquiry on behalf of the Corporation.
The jury were sworn to inquire into "the death of Catherine Eddowes, alias Conway, alias Kelly," and thereafter proceeded to the mortuary to view the body.
The jury having returned after a lapse of a few minutes,
Mr. Crawford, City Solicitor, addressing the coroner, said-I appear here, sir, as representing the City police in this matter, for the purpose of rendering you every possible assistance, and if I should consider it desirable in the course of the inquiry to put any questions to witnesses, probably I shall have your permission?
The Coroner.-Certainly, sir.
Eliza Gold was the first witness called. She said-I live at 6, Thrawl-street, Spitalfields. I am a single woman. I have been married, but my husband is dead. I recognise the deceased as my poor sister (sobbing). Her name was Catherine Eddowes. I cannot exactly tell you where she was living. She was living with a gentleman. She had not been married. Her age last birthday was about 43 years, as far as I can remember. She has been living for some years with Mr. Kelly. He is in Court. I last saw her alive about four or five months ago. She used to go out hawking for a living, and was a woman of sober habits. Before she went to live with Kelly, she had lived with a man named Conway for several years, and had two children by him. I cannot tell how many years she lived with Conway. I do not know that Conway is still living. He was a pensioner from the army, and used to go out hawking. I do not know on what terms he parted from my sister. I do not know whether she was in the habit of seeing him. I am quite certain that the body I have seen is that of my sister.
By the City Solicitor.-I have not seen Conway for seven or eight years. I believe my sister was living with him then on friendly terms.
Was she living on friendly terms with Kelly?-I cannot say. Three or four weeks ago I saw them together, and they were then living on happy terms. I cannot fix the time when I last saw them. They were living at 55, Flower and Dean-street, a lodging-house, with a person named Smith. My sister when living there came to see me when I was very ill. From that time, until I saw her in the mortuary, I have not seen her.
A juror pointed out that the witness had at one stage of her evidence said that she had not seen her sister for three or four months, whilst later on she spoke of three or four weeks.
The Coroner.-You said your sister came to see you when you were ill, and that you had not seen her since. Was that three or four weeks ago?
Witness.-Yes.
So that saying three or four months was a mistake?-Yes, sir; I am so upset and confused.
The witness still kept sobbing. On being asked to subscribe her name to her evidence, she said she could not write her name. Her mark was therefore taken instead.
John Kelly, the next witness, said he lived at 55, Flower and Dean-street, Spitalfields.-I am a labourer, and job about the markets and Spitalfields. I recognise the body of the deceased as Catherine Conway. I have been living with her for seven years. She hawked a few things about the streets for a living, and lived with me at a common lodging-house in Flower and Dean-street. The lodging-house was kept by a person named [Caray]. I last saw her alive on Saturday, in Houndsditch. We parted on very good terms. She told me she was going over to Bermondsey, to try and find her daughter Annie. Those were the last words she spoke to me. I believe Annie was a daughter she had had by Conway. She promised me before we parted that she would be back by four o'clock, and no later. She did not return.
Did you make any inquiries after her?-I heard she had been locked up at Bishopsgate-street. An old woman who works in the lane told me she saw her in the hands of the police.
Did you make any inquiries?-I made no further inquiries. I knew that she would be out on Sunday morning.
Did you know why she was locked up?-Yes, for drink; she had had a drop of drink. I never knew she went out for any immoral purpose. She was occasionally in the habit of slightly drinking to excess. When I left her she had no money about her. She went to see and find her daughter to get a trifle, so that I shouldn't see her walk about the streets at night-not frequent. She was not in the habit of walking the streets. I was without money to pay for our lodgings at the time. I do not know that she was at variance with anyone-not in the least. She had not seen Conway-not as I know of. I never saw him in my existence. I cannot say that Conway is living.
The Foreman of the Jury.-You say you heard the deceased was taken into custody. Did you ascertain, as a matter of fact, when she was discharged from custody?
Witness.-I did not know when she was discharged.
What time was she in the habit of returning to her lodgings?-Early.
What do you call early?-About eight or nine o'clock.
When she did not return on this particular evening, did it not occur to you that it would be right to inquire whether she had been discharged or not?-No, I did not inquire. I expected she would be discharged on the Sunday morning.
By the City Solicitor.-I do not know with whom she had been drinking that afternoon. She had not on a recent occasion absented herself from me at night. The previous occasion when she was away from me was weeks and months ago. This was in consequence of a few words. She was away only a few hours. On Saturday we had no angry words about anything. She had told me that her daughter Annie lived in King-street, South Bermondsey. That was the only occasion for months she went to seek her daughter. We lived in the same lodging-house for several years together. On Friday night we did not sleep together. She had the misfortune to go to Mile-end, and slept in the casual ward there, but I was at the lodging-house. That week we never slept once together in the lodging-house.
On Monday where did you sleep?-I was in Kent hop picking.
Was the deceased with you?-Yes.
On Tuesday you were both in Kent?-Yes.
And on Wednesday?-Yes.
When did you both come back from Kent?-On Thursday.
And where did you sleep on Thursday evening?-We both slept at Shoe-lane casual wards, because we had no money.
The Coroner.-Did you not earn any money?-Yes, but it was expended.
The City Solicitor.-How was it you slept at the lodging-house on Friday, and she at Mile-end?-We were together all Friday, and we had not money enough to pay for both in the lodging-house. She went to the casual wards, and what money she had she made me take to go to the lodging-house.
What did she leave you for?-To go to seek shelter in the Mile-end casual ward. On Saturday morning I saw her accidentally at eight a.m. I was surprised to see her so early. There was some tea and sugar found on her. We bought that out of some boots we pawned. The boots were pawned at Jones's, for 2s. 6d., on Saturday morning. She was sober when she left me. We had been drinking together out of the 2s. 6d. All of it was spent in drink and food. She left me quite sober to go to her daughter's. We parted without an angry word. I do not know why she left Conway. In the past seven years she only lived with me. I did not know of her going out for immoral purposes at night. She never brought me money in the morning after being out at night. I do not clearly remember when the boots were pawned. I stood outside in my bare feet while my missus went in and pawned the boots.
By a Juror.-I cannot really tell when the boots were pawned. I'm muddled like, with one thing and another.
Frederick William Wilkington [sic] said-I am deputy of the lodging-house at Flower and Dean-street. I have known the deceased and Kelly during the last seven years. They passed as man and wife, and lived on very good terms. They had a quarrel now and then, but not to say a violent one. They had a few words when Kate was in drink, but they were not serious. I believe she got her living by hawking about the streets, and cleaning amongst the Jews in Whitechapel. Kelly paid me pretty regularly. Kate was not often in drink. She was a very jolly woman, always singing. I never saw Kelly the worse for drink. During the last week I saw the deceased at the lodging-house on Friday afternoon. I did not see Kelly then. Kate went out on Friday night. I saw her again on Saturday morning, between ten and eleven, along with Kelly, and I did not see her again any more.
Did you know she was in the habit of walking the streets at night?-No. She generally used to return between nine and ten o'clock. I never knew her to be intimate with any particular individual, and never heard of such a thing. She used to say she was married to Conway, that her name was bought and paid for-meaning she was married. She was not at variance with anyone that I know of. I last saw her on Saturday morning, between ten and eleven. She was quite sober then. I first heard from Kelly on Saturday night that Kate, he heard, was locked up, and he said he wanted a single bed. That was about half-past seven in the evening. A single bed is 4d., and a double 8d.
By a Juror.-I don't take the names of my lodgers, but I know my "regulars."
By the City Solicitor.-The last time the two slept at the lodging-house together was five or six weeks ago. Kelly slept there on Friday and Saturday, but not Kate. I did not make any inquiry about her not being there on Friday. They went out together on Friday. I could not say whether Kate went out with Kelly on Saturday, but I saw them having their breakfast together. Kelly did not go out after ten on Saturday evening. I cannot tell when he got up on Sunday. I saw him about dinner time. I believe on Saturday morning Kate was wearing an apron. Nothing unusual struck me about her dress on Saturday morning. The distance between our place and the scene of the murder is about 500 yards.
A Juror.-More than that.
The City Solicitor.-Did anyone come into your lodging-house and take a bed between one and two o'clock on the Sunday morning?-No stranger came in then.
Did anyone come into your lodging-house about that hour?-No; two detectives came about three and asked if I had any women out.
Did anyone come into your lodging-house about two o'clock on Sunday morning whom you did not recognise?-I cannot say; I could tell by my book, which can soon be produced.
By a Juror.-Kelly and the deceased were at breakfast together between ten and eleven on Saturday morning. If they had asked me I would have trusted them. I trust all lodgers I know. The body was found half a mile from my lodging-house.
Police-constable Edward Watkin, No. 881, said-I was on duty at Mitre-square on Saturday night. I have been in the force 17 years. I went on duty at 9.45 upon my regular beat. That extends from Duke-street, Aldgate, through Heneage-lane, a portion of Bury-street, through Creed Church-lane, into Leadenhall-street, along eastward, into Mitre-street, then into Mitre-square, round the square again into Mitre-street, then into King-street to St. James's-place, round the place, then into Duke-street, where I start from. That beat takes 12 or 14 minutes. I had been patrolling the beat continually from ten o'clock at night until one o'clock on Sunday morning.
Had anything excited your attention during those hours?-No, sir.
Or any person?-No. I passed through Mitre-square at 1.30 on the Sunday morning. I had my lantern, alight and on, fixed to my belt. According to my usual practice, I looked at the different passages and corners.
At half-past one did anything excite your attention?-No.
Did you see anyone about?-No.
Could anyone have been about that portion of the square without your seeing them?-No. I next came into Mitre-square at 1.44, when I discovered the body. I turned to the right as I entered the square. That was the side where something attracted my attention. I saw the body of the woman lying there, on her back, with her feet towards the square. Her clothes were thrown up. I saw her throat was cut and her bowels protruding. The stomach was ripped up. She was lying in a pool of blood. I did not touch the body. I ran across to Kearley and Long's warehouse. The door was ajar, and I pushed it open, and called on the watchman, Morris, who was inside. He came out. I remained with the body until the arrival of Police-constable Holland. No one else was there before that but myself. He was followed by Dr. Sequeira. Inspector Collard arrived about two o'clock, and Dr. Brown, who is surgeon to the police force.
Did you hear any footsteps as if anybody were running away?-No.
By the Coroner.-The door of the warehouse was ajar, because the watchman was working about. It was no unusual thing for the door to be ajar at that hour of the morning.
By the City solicitor.-I was continually patrolling my beat from ten o'clock up to half-past one. I noticed nothing unusual up till 1.44, when I saw the body.
By the Coroner.-I did not sound an alarm. We (the City police) do not carry whistles, sir.
By a Juror.-My beat is not a double, but a single beat. No other policeman comes into Mitre-street.
Frederick William Foster, of 26, Old Jewry, architect and surveyor, produced a plan which he had made of the place where the body was found, and the district. They were in three sections, one 8ft. to an inch, another 200ft. to the inch, and the third was an Ordnance map of the City upon the same scale. From Berner-street to Mitre-street is three-quarters of a mile, and a man could walk the distance in twelve minutes.
By the City Solicitor.-That is the nearest way. One unaccustomed to the district would go that way. Starting from Mitre-square to reach Goulston-street a man would have choice of two routes-one through Church-passage, Duke-street, Houndsditch, Gravel-lane, Stoney-lane, crossing Petticoat-lane to Goulston-street. He knew where his lodging-house was. A person desirous of going to the lodging-house would go that way from Mitre-square.
The City Solicitor.-A portion of the woman's apron was found in Goulston-street.
F.W. Wilkinson, recalled, examined by the City Solicitor, produced his books, showing a register of the lodgers he had. Kelly had No. 52 on Friday and Saturday. He could not tell if anyone came in about two o'clock on Sunday morning. There were six men, strangers, sleeping in the house on Saturday night. He could not say whether anyone left his bed about midnight. The police came about three o'clock in the morning.
By a Juror.-The house is generally open until half-past two in the morning. The time lodgers come in is not booked. I put a cross on the book and the numbers of the room taken. I have sometimes over 100 lodgers at the same time in the house.
After a short adjournment for luncheon,
Inspector Collard, of the City police, was called. He said-At five minutes before two o'clock on Sunday morning last I received information at Bishopsgate-street police-station that a woman had been murdered in Mitre-square. Information was at once telegraphed to headquarters. I dispatched a constable at once to Dr. Gordon Brown informing him, and proceeded myself to Mitre-square, arriving there about two or three minutes past two. I there found Dr. Sequeira, two or three police-officers, and the deceased person lying in the south-west corner of the square, in the position described by Constable Watkins. The body was not touched until the arrival shortly afterwards of Dr. Brown. The medical gentlemen examined the body, and in my presence Sergeant Jones picked up from the footway by the left side of the deceased three small black buttons, such as are generally used for boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, and a small mustard tin containing two pawntickets. They were handed to me. The doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance, and saw the body placed in the conveyance. It was then taken to the mortuary and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself. I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut.
Was there any money about her?-No; no money whatever was found. A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased. When I got to the square I took immediate steps to have the neighbourhood searched for the person who committed the murder. Mr. M'Williams, Chief of the Detective Department, on arriving shortly afterwards, sent men to search in all directions in Spitalfields, both in streets and lodging-houses. Several men were stopped and searched in the streets, without any good result. I have had a house-to-house inquiry made in the vicinity of Mitre-square, and inquiry as to any noises or whether persons were seen in the place, but I have not been able to find any beyond the witnesses who saw a man and woman talking together.
By the City Solicitor.-The head, neck, and, I imagine, the shoulders, were lying in a pool of blood when she was first found, but there was no blood in front. I did not touch the body myself, but the doctor said the body was warm. There was no sign of any struggle having taken place. I made a careful inspection of the ground all round. There was no trace whatever of any struggle. There was nothing in the appearance of the woman, or of the clothes, to lead to the idea that there had been any struggle. From the fact that the blood was in a liquid state, I conjectured that the murder had not been long previously committed. In my opinion, the body had not been there more than a quarter of an hour. I endeavoured to trace footsteps, but could find no trace whatever. The backs of the empty houses adjoining were searched.
Dr. F. Gordon Brown, surgeon to the City of London Police Force, said-I was called up shortly after two o'clock on Sunday morning. I left home about 2.18, and at Mitre-square my attention was called to a woman lying there. The body was lying in the position that the constable has already described. It was on its back, the head turned to the left shoulder, the arms by the side of the body, as if they had fallen there, the palms turned upwards, the fingers slightly bent, a thimble was lying on the ground near the right hand. The clothes were drawn up above the abdomen. The bonnet was at the back of the head. There was great disfigurement of the face, which I will mention presently. The throat was cut across. Below the cut was a neckerchief. The upper part of the dress was open as if it had been pulled open. The abdomen was all exposed, the intestines drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder. A piece of the intestines about 2ft. long was quite detached from the body and placed between the left arm and the body, apparently by design. The lobe of the right ear was cut obliquely through, there was a quantity of clotted blood on the left side of the body, on the pavement, above the shoulder, and blood-coloured fluid, with serum, which had flowed under the neck to the right shoulder, the pavement sloping in that direction. The body was quite warm, and there was no rigor mortis. She must have been dead but a few minutes, less than half an hour. We looked for superficial bruises then and saw none. There was no blood on the abdomen. There was no spurting of blood on the bricks or pavement around, and no marks of blood below the middle of the body. The buttons were found in the clotted blood after the body was removed. When the body arrived at Golden-lane the clothes were more covered with blood than when I first saw them, but that was in consequence of the removal. The clothes were carefully taken off the body, as described by Inspector Collard. We made a post-mortem examination at 2.30 on Sunday afternoon. Rigor mortis was well marked; the body not quite cold; a green discoloration near the abdomen, post-mortem. On washing the left hand carefully a recent bruise, the size of a sixpence, was discovered on the back of the left hand between the thumb and first finger. There were a few small bruises of older date on the right shin, and a slight graze on the scalp. The hands and arms were browned, as if from exposure to the sun. There were no bruises on the scalp, or the elbows, or the back of the body. The face was very much mutilated. There was a cut about a quarter of an inch long below the left eyelid dividing the structures completely. On the upper eyelid on that side there was a scratch through the skin near to the angle of the nose. The right eyelid was cut through to about half an inch in extent-a similar cut. There was a clean cut over the bridge of the nose, extending from the left border of the nasal bone down near to the angle of the jaw on the right side, across the chin. This cut went into the nasal bone and divided all the structures of the cheek except the mucous membrane of the mouth. The tip of the nose was quite detached from the nose by an oblique cut from the bottom of the nasal bones to where the wings of the nose join to the face. A cut from this divided the upper lip and extended through the substance of the gums from the right upper lateral incisor tooth. About half an inch from the tip of the nose was another oblique cut. There was a cut at the right angle of the mouth, as if by the point of a knife, through the mucous membrane, and a cut extended for an inch and a half over the upper lip. There was on each side of the cheek a cut which peeled up the skin, forming a triangular flap of an inch and a half. On the left cheek there were two abrasions of the epithelium. There were also similar abrasions under the left ear. The throat was cut, of course, to the extent of about six or seven inches. The superficial cut commenced about an inch and a half behind the lobe of the left ear, and about two and a half inches below the ear, and it extended across the throat to about three inches below the lobe of the right ear. The sterno-mastoid muscle was divided, and the large vessels of the left side of the neck were severed. The larynx was severed at the middle of the cricoid cartilage. All the deep structures were severed to the bone, the knife marking the vertebral cartilage. The sheath of the vessels on the right side was just opened. The left carotid artery had a pin-hole opening, and the left jugular vein was opened to the extent of an inch and a half. The anterior fibres of the sterno-mastoid were cut to the extent of half an inch. The cause of death was hæmorrhage from the left carotid artery. The other injuries were inflicted after death. We examined the injuries to the abdomen. The front walls were laid open from the sternum to the pubes. The cut commenced opposite the ensiform cartilage. The incision went upwards, and did not penetrate the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the ensiform cartilage. The knife must have been held so that the point was towards the left side and the handle to the right. Behind this the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a knife. Below this was another incision into the liver about two and a half inches deep, and below this again the left lobe of the liver was cut through about three or four inches. These cuts were shown by a jagging of the skin, as if the knife had been drawn and stabbed in again. The abdominal walls were divided vertically in the middle line to within a quarter of an inch of the navel. The cut took a horizontal course of 2½ inches to the right side, and then divided the navel on the left side, and made a parallel incision to the former horizontal one, leaving the navel on a tongue of skin. The incision then took an oblique course to the right. It divided the lower part of the abdomen, and went down to half an inch behind the rectum. There was a cut which wounded the peritoneum. At the top of the thigh was another cut. After describing various other wounds, the witness continued: There was little or no bleeding from the abdominal injuries, showing that they were inflicted after death. The cuts were probably made by someone on the side of the body, kneeling below the middle of the body. Examination showed that there was very little in the stomach in the way of food or fluid. After describing the conditions of the various organs, and the nature of other wounds discovered by post-mortem examination, witness said: The left kidney was completely cut out and taken away. The renal artery was cut through about three-quarters of an inch. This must have been done by someone who knew the position of the kidney and how to take it out. The membrane over the uterus was cut through, and the womb was cut through, leaving a stump of about three-quarters of an inch. The rest of the womb was absent-taken completely away from the body, together with some of the ligaments.
Mr. Crawford.-Have you formed any opinion as to whether the woman was standing when the wounds were inflicted?-I believe she was lying on the ground. The wounds were inflicted with a sharp pointed knife, with a blade at least six inches long.
Do you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds had a great deal of anatomical knowledge and skill?-A great deal of knowledge of the position of the abdominal organs.
Could the parts removed be used for professional purposes?-They would be of no use for professional purposes.
Would the extraction of the left kidney show great anatomical knowledge and skill?-Great
knowledge of its position, for it is very easily overlooked.
Would not such a knowledge be possessed by one accustomed to cutting up animals?-Yes.
Have you been able to form any opinion as to whether the perpetrator of this act was disturbed during the performance of it?-I should think he had sufficient time, as he would not have nicked the eyelids unless he had.
How long would the whole thing take to do?-It could be done in five minutes. I may say that a man who is accustomed to removing the womb was asked to take one out, and it took him three minutes.
Can you, as a professional man, assign any reason for these parts being taken away?-I cannot.
Have you any doubt in your own mind that there was no struggle?-I am sure there was no struggle.
Are you equally of opinion that the act was that of one man?-I think so.
Can you as a medical man account for the fact of noise being heard by those in the immediate neighbourhood?-The throat had been so instantly severed that I do not suppose there would be any time for the least sound to be uttered.
Would you expect to find much blood on the person who inflicted those wounds?-No, I should not.
Was your attention called to this portion of an apron which was found upon the woman?-It was. There were stains of blood upon the apron.
Are the stains of recent origin?-They are. Dr. Phillips afterwards brought me a piece of apron which had been found in Goulstone-street by a policeman. The stains are those of blood, but it is impossible to say that it is human blood.
On the piece of apron brought in by Dr. Phillips were there smears of blood as if someone had wiped blood-stained hands upon it?-Yes. There were also some other stains.
With regard to the mutilation of the face, can you form any opinion as to why it was done?-I suppose to disfigure the corpse.
The City Solicitor said he was glad to announce that the Corporation had unanimously approved the offer by the Lord Mayor of a reward of 500l. for the discovery of the murderer.
The jury having expressed their satisfaction at the promptness with which the offer was made,
The inquest was adjourned until half-past ten o'clock on Thursday next.
At the Thames Police Court yesterday the man Pizer, who was arrested on suspicion of being connected with the murder of Annie Chapman, in Hanbury-street, and who was discharged after giving a satisfactory account of himself, complained to Mr. Lushington that since he was released from custody he had been subjected to great annoyance. Only that morning a woman accosted him in the street, and after calling him "Old Leather Apron" and other insulting names, struck him three blows in the face.-Mr. Lushington told Pizer he could have a summons against the person who had assaulted him.
At the Hampstead Police Court yesterday William Webb, 43, a labourer and army pensioner, living at New-end-square, Hampstead, was charged before Mr. B.W. Smith and Mr. G.H. Powell with appearing in Heath-street in female costume with a carving-knife in his possession, for a supposed unlawful purpose.-Police-constable Mackenzie, 591 S, deposed that on Wednesday night, at about a quarter to eight, he was on fixed point duty near the Metropolitan Fire Brigade station, when he saw a crowd outside the "Horse and Groom," Heath-street. Witness went to ascertain the cause, and saw the prisoner in the midst of the crowd dressed up in the woman's clothes now produced-a hat, skirt, petticoat, and jacket-and with a handkerchief round his neck. The witness told him to go away. The prisoner would not go, but drew a knife from his sleeve about a foot long, with the blade sharpened, and said he was going to Whitechapel to catch the murderer. The witness did not know the prisoner, but the accused was known in Hampstead. He did not seem to be the worse for drink. The witness took him to the station.-The prisoner said that some of his companions had told him he had not the pluck to go down to Whitechapel to look after the murderer, and so he went home and put his wife's clothes on, and came out. He had no intention of going to Whitechapel. It was only a joke.-Inspector Sly, S division, said that prisoner had shaved off his moustache. The witness thought it right to detain him when he was brought to the station, but he now believed that prisoner's conduct was nothing but a joke.-The prisoner admitted that he had shaved off his moustache.-The Bench said that the constable had acted properly in taking prisoner into custody, and fined the accused 10s., or in default seven days' imprisonment for disorderly conduct.
COMMON LODGING-HOUSES AT THE EAST-END.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE MORNING ADVERTISER.
SIR,-In your report of the proceedings at the Worship-street Police Court on Tuesday last, and which appeared in your columns of yesterday, I am stated to have made an observation to the magistrate-Mr. Montagu Williams-which (in consequence perhaps of my addressing the magistrate and not the reporter) has been somewhat misrepresented. The magistrate denounced in very strong language the tendency to immorality and crime which the common lodging-houses of the East-end fostered and the facilities they afforded for the concealment of the criminals and outcasts of society. The inspector of police present made a remark to the magistrate, and I, as amicus curio, said-not as reported-that there was only one section in the Criminal Law Amendment Act which could deal with these cases, but that such cases-the indiscriminate letting of beds to strangers of both sexes-could not be dealt with under the Criminal Law Amendment Act unless it could be proved that the premises were used for habitual prostitution. The magistrate suggested that further legislation was required. That may be desirable, but does it not suggest to any ordinary observer that the same law which prevents a traveling tinker and his wife or companion from staying at a common lodging-house in a "double" would also apply to Lord Beldash and Lady Nocash staying at the Grand or any other hotel? I agree with the magistrate that these houses are the haunts of, to a large extent, the criminal class, but the houses are inspected by and are under the eyes of the police. Suppress these houses, and what becomes of the habitués? They are not suppressed. So long as the class exists they will have their haunts and resorts. You do not destroy the vermin by simply destroying their nests; neither can you suppress wickedness and crime by driving them into holes and corners. Mr. Montagu Williams professes to have had large experience with this class of people. Suggestions for the amelioration of the criminal class and for the prevention of criminal practices from an authority such as Mr. Williams are what society is now anxiously waiting for.
I am, Sir, yours, &c.
E. WALKER,
Vestry Clerk, St. Leonard, Shoreditch.
Michael Sullivan, 23, and Michael Murphy, 28, were charged on remand with violently assaulting Constable Bishop, 160 H, while in the execution of his duty.-The officer stated that on the night of the 26th ult. he was passing through North-East-passage, when he saw a woman lying on the ground and another woman trying to lift her up. Murphy and two others were standing close by. The witness stepped to see what was the matter, and Murphy said "You clear out of this, or you'll get something." As witness was helping to lift up the woman, Murphy hit him on the jaw and about the head. They struggled and fell, and Murphy promised to go quietly to the station, but when he got up he struck the witness "right and left." Murphy fell, and tried to throw the witness, and kicked him on the knee. The prisoner got up, and they struggled and fell, the witness being on the stop. A crowd closed round, and as witness was about to blow his whistle Sullivan snatched it from him, threw it away, and kicked him. Another man hit him in the face, and witness was obliged to let Murphy go. Assistance arrived, and prisoners were afterwards arrested.-The accused were again remanded.
COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL.
A meeting of the Court of Common Council was held yesterday in the Guildhall, the Lord Mayor presiding.
On the motion of Mr. Deputy HALSE, Mr. Newton, one of the new sheriffs, who is not a member of the Court, was invited to take his seat on the alderman's dais.
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER.
The LORD MAYOR said-The Court is aware of the course I was advised and thought it right to take as to the prompt offer, in the name of the Corporation, of a substantial reward for the apprehension of the Mitre-square murderer, and I am glad to see that not only is public opinion satisfied, but, judging from the paper of business, the Court is equally so. I will only now ask the Court to endorse that which I have done in its name, and I am sure we all join in the earnest hope that the perpetrator or perpetrators of these hideous crimes will be speedily detected.-(Hear, hear.)
Mr. F. GREEN said he was sure the Court desired to endorse the action which had been taken by his lordship. All England had for days past been horrified by particulars of the terrible crimes that had been committed. They had but one object in view, and that was to leave no stone unturned in their endeavour to do all in the power to effect the arrest of the murderer. He therefore moved a resolution endorsing the action of the Lord Mayor in offering the reward.
Mr. Alderman COWAN, who seconded the motion, remarked that it would not be necessary for him in doing this to utter a single observation in support of it.
The resolution was agreed to unanimously.
