The Times (London).
3 September 1888.
The Whitechapel Murder.
Up to a late hour last evening the police had obtained no clue to the
perpetrator of the latest of the three murders which have so recently
taken place in Whitechapel, and there is, it must be acknowledged,
after their exhaustive investigation of the facts, no ground for blaming
the officers in charge should they fail in unravelling the mystery
surrounding the crime. The murder, in the early hours of Friday morning
last, of the woman now known as Mary Ann Nicholls [Nichols], has so many
points of similarity with the murder of two other women in the same
neighbourhood - one Martha Turner, as recently as August 7, and the other
less than 12 months previously - that the police admit their belief that
the three crimes are the work of one individual. All three women were of
the class called "unfortunates," each so very poor, that robbery could
have formed no motive for the crime, and each was murdered in such a
similar fashion, that doubt as to the crime being the work of one and the
same villain almost vanishes, particularly when it is remembered that all
three murders were committed within a distance of 300 yards from each
other. These facts have led the police to almost abandon the idea of a
gang being abroad to wreak vengeance on women of this class for not
supplying them with money. Detective-Inspectors Abberline, of the Criminal
Investigation Department, and Detective-Inspector Helson, J Division, are
both of opinion that only one person, and that a man, had a hand in the
latest murder. It is understood that the investigation into the George-yard
mystery is proceeding hand-in-hand with that of Buck's-row. It is considered
unlikely that the woman could have entered a house, been murdered, and
removed to Buck's-row within a period of one hour and a quarter. The woman
who last saw her alive, and whose name is Nelly Holland, was a fellow-lodger
with the deceased in Thrawl-street, and is positive as to the time being
2:30. Police-constable Neil, 97 J, who found the body, reports the time as
3:45. Buck's-row is a secluded place, from having tenements on one side
only. The constable has been severely questioned as to his "working" of his
"beat" on that night, and states that he was last on the spot where he
found the body not more than half an hour previously - that is to say, at
3:15. The beat is a very short one, and quickly walked over would not occupy
more than 12 minutes. He neither heard a cry nor saw any one. Moreover,
there are three watchmen on duty at night close to the spot, and neither one
heard a cry to cause alarm. It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a
man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men.
He came upon it as he walked, and flashing his lantern to examine it, he was
answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street.
These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and
the mystery is most complete. The utmost efforts are being used, a number of
plainclothes men being out making inquiries in the neighbourhood, and
Sergeants Enright and Godley have interviewed many persons who might, it was
thought, assist in giving a clue.
On Saturday afternoon Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, coroner for the South-Eastern
Division of Middlesex, opened his inquiry at the Working Lads' Institute,
Whitechapel-road, respecting the death of MARY ANN NICHOLS, whose dead body
was found on the pavement in Buck's-row, Whitechapel, on Friday morning.
Detective-Inspectors Abberline and Helston [Helson] and Sergeants Enright and
Godley watched the case on behalf of the Criminal Investigation Department.
The jury having been sworn and having viewed the body of the dead woman, which
was lying in a shell in the Whitechapel Mortuary.
Edward Walker, of 16 Maidswood-road, Camberwell, deposed that he was now of no
occupation, but had formerly been a smith. He had seen the body in the mortuary,
and to the best of his belief it was that of his daughter, whom he had not seen
for two years. He recognized the body by its general appearance and by some of
the front teeth being missing. Deceased also had a scar on the forehead which
was caused by a fall when she was young. There was a scar on the body of the
woman then lying in the mortuary. His daughter's name was Mary Ann Nichols, and
she had been married quite 22 years. Her husband's name was William Nichols, a
printer's machinist, and he was still alive. They had been living apart for
seven or eight years. Deceased was about 42 years of age. The last time witness
heard of the deceased was about Easter, when she wrote him a letter. He produced
the letter, which was in the handwriting of the deceased. It spoke of a situation
she was in, and which, she said, she liked very much. He answered that letter,
but had not since heard from the deceased. The last time he saw deceased was in
June, 1886, when she was respectably dressed. That was at the funeral of his son,
who was burnt to death through the explosion of a paraffin lamp. Some three or
four years previous to that the deceased had lived with witness; but he was
unable to say what she had since been doing. Deceased was not a particularly
sober woman, and that was the reason why they could not agree. He did not think
she was "fast" with men, and she was not in the habit of staying out late at
night while she was living with him. He had no idea what deceased had been doing
since she left him. He did not turn the deceased out of doors. They simply had a
few words, and the following morning she left home. The reason deceased parted
from her husband was that he went and lived with the woman who nursed his wife
during her confinement. Witness knew nothing of his daughter's acquaintances, or
what she had been doing for a living. Deceased was not 5 ft. 4 in. in height.
She had five children, the eldest of whom was 21 years of age and the youngest
eight or nine. She left her husband when the youngest child was only one or two
years of age. The eldest was now lodging with witness. He was unable to say if
deceased had recently been living with any one; but some three or four years ago
he heard she was living with a man named Drew, who was a house smith by trade and
had a shop of his own in York-street, Walworth. Witness believed he was still
living there. The husband of the deceased had been summoned for the keep of the
children, but the charge was dismissed owing to the fact that she was then living
with another man. Deceased was in the Lambeth Workhouse in April last, when she
left to go to a situation. Her husband was still living at Coburg-road, Old
Kent-road, but witness was not aware if he was aquainted with his wife's death.
Witness did not think the deceased had any enemies, as she was too good for that.
Police-constable John Neil 97 J, deposed that on Friday morning he was passing
down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, and going in the direction of Brady-street, and he
did not notice any one about. He had been round the same place some half an hour
previous to that and did not see any one. He was walking along the right-hand side
of the street when he noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the
time, although a street lamp was shining at the end of the row. He walked across
and found the deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. He
noticed that the gateway, which was about 9 ft. or 10 ft. in height and led to
some stables, was closed. Houses ran eastward from the gateway, while the Board
school was westward of the spot. On the other side of the road was the Essex
Wharf. The deceased was lying lengthways, and her left hand touched the gate.
With the aid of his lamp he examined the body and saw blood oozing from a wound
in the throat. Deceased was lying upon her back with her clothes disarranged.
Witness felt her arm, which was quite warm from the joints upwards, while her
eyes were wide open. Her bonnet was off her head and was lying by her right
side, close by the left hand. Witness then heard a constable passing Brady-street,
and he called to him. Witness said to him, "Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn." Seeing
another constable in Baker's-row, witness despatched him for the ambulance. Dr.
Llewellyn arrived in a very short time. In the meantime witness had rung the bell
of Essex Wharf and inquired if any disturbance had been heard. He was told "No."
Sergeant Kerby then came, and he knocked. The doctor, having looked at the woman,
said:- "Move the woman to the mortuary; she is dead. I will make a further
examination of her." They then placed deceased on the ambulance and removed her
to the mortuary. Inspector Spratley [Spratling] came to the mortuary, and while
taking a description of deceased lifted up her clothes and discovered she was
disembowelled. That had not been noticed before. On the deceased was found a
piece of comb and a bit of looking glass, but no money was found. In the pocket
an unmarked white pocket handkerchief was found. There was a pool of blood where
the neck of deceased was lying in Buck's-row. He had not heard any disturbance
that night. The farthest he had been that night was up Baker's-row to the
Whitechapel-road, and was never far away from the spot. The Whitechapel-road
was a busy thoroughfare in the early morning, and he saw a number of women in
that road, apparently on their way home. At that time any one could have got
away. Witness examined the ground while the doctor was being sent for.
[Inspector Spratley observed that he examined the road after it was daylight.]
In answer to a juryman, the witness said he did not see any trap in the road.
He examined the road, but could not see any marks of wheels. The first persons
who arrived on the spot after he discovered the body were two men who worked at
a slaughterhouse opposite. They stated that they knew nothing of the affair,
nor had they heard any screams. Witness had previously seen the men at work.
That would be a quarter past 3, or half an hour before he found the body.
Mr. Henry Llewellyn, surgeon, of 152, Whitechapel-road, stated that at 4 o'clock
on Friday morning he was called by the last witness to Buck's-row. The officer
told him what he was wanted for. On reaching Buck's-row he found deceased lying
flat on her back on the pathway, her legs being extended. Deceased was quite
dead, and she had severe injuries to her throat. Her hands and wrists were cold,
but the lower extremities were quite warm. Witness examined her chest and felt
the heart. It was dark at the time. He should say the deceased had not been dead
more than half an hour. He was certain the injuries to the neck were not
self-inflicted. There was very little blood round the neck, and there were no
marks of any struggle or of blood, as though the body had been dragged. Witness
gave the police directions to take the body to the mortuary, where he would make
another examination. About an hour afterwards he was sent for by the inspector to
see the other injuries he had discovered on the body. Witness went, and saw that
the abdomen was cut very extensively. That morning he had made a post mortem
examination of the body. It was that of a female of about 40 or 45 years. Five of
the teeth were missing, and there was a slight laceration of the tongue. There
was a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw on the right side of the
face. That might have been caused by a blow from a fist or pressure from a thumb.
There was a circular bruise on the left side of the face, which also might have
been inflicted by the pressure of the fingers. On the left side of the neck,
about 1 in. below the jaw, there was an incision about 4 in. in length, and ran
from a point immediately below the ear. On the same side, but an inch below, and
commencing about 1 in. in front of it, was a circular incision, which terminated
at a point about 3 in. below the right jaw. That incision completely severed all
the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides
were severed. The incision was about 8 in. in length. The cuts must have been
caused by a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence.
No blood was found on the breast, either of the body or clothes. There were no
injuries about the body until just above the lower part of the abdomen. Two or
three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. The wound
was a very deep one, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions
running across the abdomen. There were also three or four similar cuts, running
downwards, on the right side, all of which had been caused by a knife which had
been used violently and downwards. The injuries were from left to right, and might
have been done by a left-handed person. All the injuries had been caused by the
same instrument.
At this stage Mr. Wynne Baxter adjourned the inquiry until this morning.
