Читать книгу The Hunt of a pipsqueak Jack the Ripper - C. Cranston Neil - Страница 8

The Press Association says : - The following postal telegram was received by the Metropolitan Police at 11.55 p.m. last night. It was handed in at an office in the Eastern District at 8 p.m. : - "Charles Warren, Head of the Police New Central Office. - Dear Boss, - If are willing enough to catch me I am now in City-road lodging, but number you will have to find out, and I mean to do another murder to night in Whitechapel. - Yours, JACK THE RIPPER."

The telegram has been proved to have been handed in at the chief office of the Eastern District in Commercial-road, but no information is forthcoming as to how it came to be accepted by the telegraphic authorities, or by whom it was handed in. A letter was also received at the Commercial-street Police-station by the first post this morning. It was written in black lead pencil and signed "Jack Ripper." It is couched in ridiculous language, and the police believe it to be the work of a lunatic.

A MAN OF DISGUISES. The Police Believe the Murderer is in the Habit of Frequently Changing His Clothes. The police have reason to believe that the Whitechapel murderer is a man of several disguises. They do not care to make public all the information they have on this point, but they will be very pleased to have any information as to what may be known about anyone changing their clothing under peculiar circumstances near or about the time of any of the murders. The first information on this point came to hand immediately after the Buck's-row murder, and there is a strong probability that facts then ascertained have a direct bearing on subsequent events. It will be remembered that Ann Nichols was murdered on the night of 30 August. On the following night it was reported that a woman was set upon by a gang of roughs in Cambridge-heath-road, one of whom had attempted to force her into an alley way. This report proved to be false as far as the gang were concerned. The police ascertained, however, that A WOMAN HAD BEEN SET UPON by a man, and that her cries had attracted a number of others, whose efforts to capture her assailant led to the gang story. The miscreant escaped in the direction of Commercial-road. That was about eleven o'clock. Not later than a quarter-past eleven a man stepped hurriedly into a yard entrance at No. 2, Little Turner-street, Commercial-road. On one side of the yard is a milk stand. The man asked for a glass of milk, and, when served, drank it hurriedly, then, looking about in a frightened manner, asked if he might step back into the yard. The proprietor, Henry Birch, did not object, but presently, his suspicions being aroused, he stepped towards the man and found him drawing on a suit of new overalls over his ordinary clothes. The pants were already on, and he was stooping to take a jacket from A BLACK SHINY BAG that lay at his feet when Birch stepped up to him. He seemed to be very much upset by the interruption, and for a moment could not speak. Presently he said, "That was a terrible murder last night, was'nt it?" and before Birch could answer he had added, "I think I've got a clue," and, snatching up his bag, he disappeared down the street. Mr. Birch then thought he might be a detective, adopting a disguise for some purpose, but the police believe he was the man who assaulted the woman in Cambridge Heath-road, and that he donned the overalls to mislead anyone who might be tracing him. They have the name of the woman referred to, and her description tallies with that given by Birch of his mysterious caller. The clothing was described as a blue serge suit, and a stiff but low hat. He wore a stand-up collar and a watch-chain. He wore no beard, but A SLIGHT DARK MOUSTACHE, and his face was evidently sun burnt. Birch says he thought he was a seafaring man, or one who had recently made a long voyage. When he got the overalls on he had the appearance of an engineer. Many points of this description correspond so well to that given of the man who made such pointed inquiries about women at the Nuns Head Tavern, Aldgate, last Saturday night, and also to another description the police have received, that they are inclined to connect the man with the latest murders. THE ONLY QUESTIONABLE POINT

appears to be in regard to the hat, and it is just there that the theory of his frequent disguises comes in. It is deemed possible also that what a neighbor in Mitre-square thought was a light paper parcel may have been a black shiny bag, which with the light of the street lamp upon its glazed surface might easily have misled one. It is from a combination of the descriptions above referred to that the police have formed a pretty good idea of one man they would like to find.

Woman Weary of Life. Johanna Bethke, 32, a tall and well-looking North German, was charged at Worship-street with having attempted suicide by hanging herself. - The husband of the prisoner, Herman Bethke, said they lived in Great Chart-street, Hoxton. He did not know, he said, for what reason, but his wife was always troubled. She would cry, go into a passion, tear his clothes, and taking up a knife say she would kill herself. On Friday she took a rope and ran upstairs from him, and said she would hang. He laughed at her, but he asked a lodger to oblige him by going to see. The lodger would not go, and he (the husband) went upstairs. There he found his wife hanging from a rope round her neck over the stairs. He held her up by her legs and cut her down. She tried to hang herself twice afterwards. The woman, who cried bitterly, said that her husband was cruel to her. They had a lodging house, and she had to keep it clean - seven or eight rooms - and her husband did no work, but went to a gambling club at night and stopped in bed all day. - The lodger said, in reply to the magistrate (Mr. Williams, Q.C.), that he did not know if the husband stopped in bed all day. - The Prisoner: Yes you do; you go to the gambling club every night yourself; you are as bad. My husband beats me if I cannot give him money to gamble with. I am black and blue. I cannot bear it. I am sick of my life. - The magistrate directed Constable Manning to make inquiries, and remanded the prisoner till Monday.

CHARLES BRETTON, Witness but not not called to Mary Ann Nichols' inquest. Born 1859, Bolinger, Essex. In 1881 he was listed as a horse-keeper living at 25 Buck's Row, Whitechapel. Married to Susannah b.1863, Stepney.

Employee at Harrison Barber & Co, Horse slaughterers, Winthrop Street. At about 12.20am, 31st August 1888, Bretton and fellow worker Henry Tomkins left the slaughterhouse for a stroll to Wood's Buildings and returned to work at 1.00am. Bretton later accompanied Tomkins and James Mumford to see the body of Mary Ann Nichols in Buck's Row. In 1891, Charles a horse-slaughterer and Susannah were living at 42 Winthrop Street, almost opposite the slaughterhouse. By 1901 his wife Susannah is listed as single, working as a beer seller and living at 74 High Street, Bromley - it appears that Charles died in December 1899 in West Ham. There are no records of the couple ever having children.

SARAH COLWELL, Resident of Honey's Mews, Brady Street, which lies about 120 yards from Buck's Row. She told the press that at the time the murder of Mary Ann Nichols was allegedly committed, she heard a woman running along Brady Street shouting "murder, police!". Mrs. Colwell stated that she could only hear the one set of footsteps, despite being sure that the woman was running away from someone. Another press account has it that Mrs. Colwell was woken by her children who said that somebody was trying to gain entry to the house. This time, the scream of "Murder! Police!" was heard five or six times, gradually fading away. The shouts seemed to be going in the direction of Buck's Row. The generally accepted time of this incident is 12.00am, making it unlikely that it was the screams of Mary Ann Nichols whose body was still warm in places upon its discovery at 3.40am. It appears that nobody came forward to identify themselves as the woman involved.

CHARLES CROSS, Born Charles Allen Lechmere in 1849, St Anne's, Soho. In 1858, Charles' mother remarried, to Thomas Cross, a policeman and Charles took his surname. Married Elizabeth Bostock in 1871, and worked as a carman for Pickford's in Broad Street, living at 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road, Bethnal Green in 1888. Cross left home for work at 3.20am on the morning of 31st August 1888; by about 3.40am he was passing along Buck's Row when he saw what he originally believed to be a tarpaulin lying on the ground in front of the gates to a stable yard. On closer inspection, he found that it was the body of a woman and at that moment he called to Robert Paul who was also walking down the street. Cross felt one of the deceased's hands and finding it cold, said "I think she is dead". Paul asked Cross to help move the woman, but Cross refused. Not wanting to be late for work, the two men walked on and meeting PC Jonas Mizen at the junction of Hanbury Street and Baker's Row, informed him of their find. Cross said that the woman was either dead or drunk, though at the time, he did not think the woman had been murdered. He died in 1920. Charles Cross has been mooted as a potential suspect for the murder of Mary Ann Nichols.

THOMAS EDE, at Mary Ann Nichols' inquest. A signalman employed by the East London Railway Company who claimed to have seen a suspicious man on the railway line on the morning of the 8th September 1888. At the inquest on the 17th September, coroner Wynne Baxter challenged the relevance of Ede's evidence, but allowed him to continue nonetheless. On Saturday morning, 8th September, Ede was coming down Cambridge Heath Road when he saw a man on the opposite side of the road, just outside the Forester's Arms public house. The man's peculiar appearance made Ede look at him; he appeared to have a wooden arm which was hanging at his side. The man then put his hand down, revealing about four inches of knife-blade sticking out of his trouser pocket. There were three other men present who were also watching and Ede spoke to them. He then followed the man who, realizing he was being followed, quickened his pace before being lost under some railway arches. The man was described as being about 5ft 8in in height, about 35 years of age with a dark moustache and whiskers. He wore a double peaked cap, dark brown jacket and a pair of overalls and dark trousers. He walked as though he had a stiff knee and had 'a fearful look about the eyes'. He had the appearance of a mechanic (he was not muscular) and the overalls were clean. Ede could not tell what sort of knife it was. He was later recalled to the inquest (this time as William Ede) to state that he had since seen the man again and had ascertained that he was one Henry James, a well-known but harmless local lunatic. James did not, incidentally, have a wooden arm.

EMMA GREEN, Witness at Mary Ann Nichols' inquest.

Mrs. Green, a widow, lived at New Cottage, Buck's Row with her daughter and two sons. Her bedroom (which she shared with her daughter) was at the front of the house, almost overlooking the murder site. She and her daughter had gone to bed at 11.00pm on the night of 30th August 1888 and the two sons had retired earlier at 9.00pm and 9.45pm respectively.

Nobody had heard anything unusual during the night, despite Mrs Green being a light sleeper. The first she heard of the incident was when she awoke to a knock at the door at 4.00am - she opened a window and was able to see several constables and other men, as well as the body, even though it was still not light. It was her son, James, who washed the blood from the pavement with a bucket of water once Nichols' body had been taken to the mortuary

JAMES HATFIELD, Witness at Mary Ann Nichols' inquest. Born c.1830, Spitalfields. An inmate at the Whitechapel Workhouse, occupation given as 'Dock Worker'. After arriving at the workhouse mortuary in Old Montague Street at about 6.30am, 31st August 1888, Hatfield assisted Robert Mann in undressing Nichols' body.

They first removed the Ulster and put it on the ground. Hatfield then removed the jacket and put it with the Ulster. Apparently, he did not have to cut the dress to remove it, but did cut the two bands of petticoats before tearing them down with his hands. Nichols was also wearing a chemise, which Hatfield tore down the front. The two men apparently did this in order to have the body ready for examination when the doctor arrived. Hatfield did not recall being given any instructions not to touch the body and said that nobody else was present at that time. When the police arrived, it was noted that the band on one of the petticoats bore the mark of the Lambeth Workhouse and Hatfield was requested by Inspector Joseph Helson to cut this piece out. He also did not recall the deceased wearing stays, though the inquest foreman reminded Hatfield that he had seen stays in his presence and remarked that they were short. At this point, Hatfield admitted that his memory was bad.

EMILY HOLLAND, Mary Ann Nichols' inquest. Born c.1838, aka Ellen Holland, 'Nelly', Jane Oram A friend of Nichols who shared a room with her and four other women at Wilmott's Lodging House, 18 Thrawl Street. Holland positively identified the body of Nichols after Mary Ann Monk suggested that the deceased may have been the woman she knew from the Lambeth Workhouse.

Holland had returned from watching a fire at the Shadwell Dry Dock at about 2.30am on the 31st August 1888 and met Nichols at the junction of Osborn Street and Whitechapel Road. Nichols claimed that she had earned her doss money three times that night, but had spent it (she was by this time particularly drunk) and was adamant that she would earn it again, refusing to return to Wilmott's with Holland. She allegedly claimed she wanted to go somewhere where she could share a bed with a man presumably The White House at 56 Flower and Dean Street. This was the last reported sighting of Nichols before her death. Emily Holland later received two convictions at Thames Magistrates Court for being drunk and disorderly in October 1888.

Born Mary Ann Walker on August 26, 1845 in Dawes Court, Shoe Lane, off Fleet Street.. At the time of her death the East London Observer guessed her age between 30-35. At the inquest her father said proud "she was 43 or 44 years, but she looked ten years younger." Features 5'2" tall; brown eyes; dark complexion; brown hair turning grey; five front teeth missing , her teeth are slightly discolored. She is described as having small, delicate features with high cheekbones and grey eyes. She has a small scar on her forehead from a childhood injury. She is described by Emily Holland as "a very clean woman who always seemed to keep to herself." The doctor at the post mortem remarked on the cleanliness of her thighs. She is also an alcoholic. History Father: Edward Walker (Blacksmith, formerly a locksmith). He has gray hair and beard and, as a smithy, was probably powerfully built. At the time of Polly's death he is living at 16 Maidswood Rd., Camberwell. Mother: Caroline. Polly married William Nichols on January 16, 1864. She would have been about 22 years old. The marriage is performed by Charles Marshall, Vicar of Saint Bride's Parish Church and witnessed by Seth George Havelly and Sarah Good. William Nichols is in the employ of Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co., Whitefriars Rd. and living at Cogburg Rd. off Old Kent Road at the time of his wife's death. The couple have five children. Edward John, born 1866; Percy George, 1868; Alice Esther, 1870; Eliza Sarah, 1877 and Henry Alfred born in 1879. The oldest, 21 in 1888, is living with his grandfather (Polly's father) at the time of her death. He had left home in 1880 according to his father, on his own accord. The other children continued to live with Nichols. William and Polly briefly lodged in Bouverie Street then moved in with her father at 131 Trafalgar Street for about ten years. They spend six years, (no dates) at No. 6 D block, Peabody Buildings, Stamford Street, Blackfriars Rd. There they are paying a rent of 5 shillings, 6 pence per week. If Peabody Buildings is their last address then they would have lived there from 1875-1881, with her father from 1865 to 1875. Polly separated from Nichols for the final time in 1881. It was the last of many separations during 24 years of marriage. In 1882, William found out that his wife was living as a prostitute and discontinued support payments to her. (Sugden: she is living with another man, probably Thomas Dew). Parish authorities tried to collect maintenance money from him. He countered that she had deserted him leaving him with the children. He won his case after establishing that she was living as a common prostitute. At the time of her death, he had not seen his wife in three years. Polly's father spread the story that the separation had come about due to William having an affair with the nurse who took care of Polly during her last confinement. William does not deny that he had an affair but states that it was not the cause of her leaving. "The woman left me four or five times, if not six." He claims that the affair took place after Polly left. There is obvious disharmony in the family as the eldest son would have nothing to do with his father at his mother's funeral. After the separation, Polly begins a sad litany of moving from workhouse to workhouse. 3/24/83-5/21/83 -- She is living with her father in Camberwell. He testifies at the inquest into her death that she was "a dissolute character and drunkard whom he knew would come to a bad end." He found her not a sober person but not in the habit of staying out late at night. Her drinking caused friction and they argued. He claims that he had not thrown her out but she left the next morning. /2/83-10/26/87 -- She is said to have been living with a man named Thomas Dew, a blacksmith, with a shop in York Mews, 15 York St., Walworth. In June 1886 she had attended the funeral of her brother who had been burned to death by the explosion of a paraffin lamp. It was remarked by the family that she was respectably dressed. 10/25/87 -- She spends one day in St. Giles Workhouse, Endell Street. 10/26/87-12/2/87 -- Strand Workhouse, Edmonton 12/2/87-12/19/87 -- Lambeth Workhouse On 12/2/87 It is said that she was caught "sleeping rough (in the open)" in Trafalgar Square. She was found to be destitute and with no means of sustenance and was sent on to Lambeth Workhouse. 12/19/87-12/29/87 -- Lambeth Workhouse 1/4/88-4/16/88 -- Mitcham Workhouse, Holborn and Holborn Infirmary. 4/16/88-5/12/88 -- Lambeth Workhouse. It is in Lambeth Workhouse that she meets Mary Ann Monk who will eventually identify Polly's body for the police. Monk is described as a young woman with a "Haughty air and flushed face." Polly has another friend in the Lambeth Workhouse, a Mrs. Scorer. She had been separated from her husband James Scorer, an assistant salesman in Spitalfields Market, for eleven years. He claimed that he knew Polly by sight but was unable to identify the body at the mortuary. On 12 May she left Lambeth to take a position as a domestic servant in the home of Samuel and Sarah Cowdry. This was common practice at the time for Workhouses to find domestic employment for female inmates. The Cowdry's live at "Ingleside", Rose Hill Rd, Wandsworth. Samuel (b. 1827)is the Clerk of Works in the Police Department. Sarah is one year younger than her husband. They are described as upright people. Both are religious and both are teetotaler.

Polly writes her father: "I just right to say you will be glad to know that I am settled in my new place, and going all right up to now. My people went out yesterday and have not returned, so I am left in charge. It is a grand place inside, with trees and gardens back and front. All has been newly done up. They are teetotalers and religious so I ought to get on. They are very nice people, and I have not too much to do. I hope you are all right and the boy has work. So good bye for the present.

from yours truly, Polly Answer soon, please, and let me know how you are."

Walker replies to the letter but does not hear back. She works for two months and then left while stealing clothing worth three pounds, ten shillings. 8/1/88-8/2/88 -- Grays Inn Temporary Workhouse Last Addresses Wilmott's Lodging House at 18 Thrawl Street, Spitalfields. There she shares a room with four women including Emily Holland. The room is described as being surprisingly neat. The price of the room is 4d per night. On 8/24/88 Polly moves to a lodging house known as the White House at 56 Flower and Dean Street. In this doss-house men are allowed to share a bed with a woman.

Thursday, August 30 through Friday, August 31, 1888.

Heavy rains have ushered out one of the coldest and wettest summers on record. On the night of August 30, the rain was sharp and frequent and was accompanied by peals of thunder and flashes of lightning. the sky on that night was turned red by the occasion of two dock fires.

11:00 PM -- Polly is seen walking down Whitechapel Road, she is probably soliciting trade.

12:30 AM -- She is seen leaving the Frying Pan Public House at the corner of Brick Lane and Thrawl Street. She returns to the lodging house at 18 Thrawl Street.

1:20 or 1:40 AM -- She is told by the deputy to leave the kitchen of the lodging house because she could not produce her doss money. Polly, on leaving, asks him to save a bed for her. " Never Mind!" She says, "I'll soon get my doss money. See what a jolly bonnet I've got now." She indicates a little black bonnet which no one had seen before.

2:30 AM -- She meets Emily Holland, who was returning from watching the Shadwell Dry Dock fire, outside of a grocer's shop on the corner of Whitechapel Road and Osborn Street. Polly had come down Osborn Street. Holland describes her as "very drunk and staggered against the wall." Holland calls attention to the church clock striking 2:30. Polly tells Emily that she had had her doss money three times that day and had drunk it away. She says she will return to Flower and Dean Street where she could share a bed with a man after one more attempt to find trade. "I've had my doss money three times today and spent it." She says, "It won't be long before I'm back." The two women talk for seven or eight minutes. Polly leaves walking east down Whitechapel Road.

PC Neil discovers Nichols' body in Buck's Row.

3:15 AM -- PC John Thain, 96J, passes down Buck's Row on his beat. He sees nothing unusual. At approximately the same time Sgt. Kerby passes down Buck's Row and reports the same.

3:40 or 3:45 AM -- Polly Nichols' body is discovered in Buck's Row by Charles Cross, a carman, on his way to work at Pickfords in the City Road., and Robert Paul who joins him at his request. "Come and look over here, there's a woman." Cross calls to Paul. Cross believes she is dead. Her hands and face are cold but the arms above the elbow and legs are still warm. Paul believes he feels a faint heartbeat. "I think she's breathing," he says "but it is little if she is." The two men agree that they do not want to be late for work and after arranging Nichols' skirts to give her some decency, decide to alert the first police officer they meet on their way. They eventually meet PC Jonas Mizen at the junction of Hanbury Street and Baker's Row and tell him of their find. In the meantime, Nichols' body has been found by PC John Neil, 97J. He signals to PC Thain who then joins him and the two are soon joined by Mizen. Thain calls for Dr. Rees Ralph Llewellyn, who resides nearby. The two return a few minutes later (around 3:50 A.M.) and Dr. Llewellyn pronounces life to have been extinct "but a few minutes." Buck's Row is ten minutes walk from Osborn Street. The only illumination is from a single gas lamp at the far end of the street. Polly's body is found across from Essex Wharf and the Brown and Eagle Wool Warehouse and Schneiders Cap Factory in a gateway entrance to Brown's stableyard between a board school (to the west) and terrace houses (cottages) belonging to better class tradesmen. She is almost underneath the window of Mrs. Emma Green, a light sleeper, who lives in the first house next to the stable gates. Her house is called the 'New Cottage'. She is a widower with two sons and a daughter living with her. That night, one son goes to bed at 9:00 PM, the other follows at 9:45. Mrs. Green and her daughter shared a first floor room at the front of the house. They went to bed at approximately 11:00 PM. She claims she slept undisturbed by any unusual sound until she was awakened by the police. Opposite New Cottage lives Walter Purkiss, the manager of Essex Wharf with his wife, children and a servant. He and his wife went to bed at 11:00 and 11:15 respectively. Both claimed to have been awake at various times in the night and heard nothing. Polly Nichols' body is identified by Lambeth Workhouse inmate Mary Ann Monk and the identification confirmed by William Nichols. An inventory of her clothes is taken by Inspector John Spratling at the mortuary. She was wearing: (overall impression -- shabby and marked)

Black Straw bonnet trimmed with black velvet Reddish brown ulster with seven large brass buttons bearing the pattern of a woman on horseback accompanied by a man.

Brown linseed frock White flannel chest cloth Black ribbed wool stockings Two petticoats, one gray wool, one flannel. Both stenciled on bands "Lambeth Workhouse" Brown stays (short) Flannel drawers Men's elastic (spring) sided boots with the uppers cut and steel tips on the heels Possessions: Comb White pocket handkerchief Broken piece of mirror (a prized possession in a lodging house) Observations of Dr. Rees Ralph Llewellyn upon arrival at Bucks row at 4:00 AM on the morning of August 31st. After only a brief examination of the body he pronounced Polly Nichols dead. He noted that there was a wine glass and a half of blood in the gutter at her side but claimed that he had no doubt that she had been killed where she lay.

HARRIET LILLEY, Born c.1841 in Lee, Hertfordshire. Married to brewer's carman William and living at 7 Buck's Row, Whitechapel. She said to the press on the afternoon of 6th September 1888 that: I slept in front of the house, and could hear everything that occurred in the street. On that Thursday night I was somehow very restless. Well, I heard something I mentioned to my husband in the morning. It was a painful moan - two or three faint gasps - and then it passed away. It was quite dark at the time, but a luggage went by as I heard the sounds. There was, too, a sound as of whispers underneath the window. I distinctly heard voices, but cannot say what was said - it was too faint. I then woke my husband, and said to him, "I don't know what possesses me, but I cannot sleep to-night." She also added that as soon as she heard of the murder she came to the conclusion that the voices she heard were in some way connected with it and that the cries were very different from those of an ordinary street brawl. An important statement, throwing considerable light on a point hitherto surrounded with some uncertainty - the time the crime was committed in Buck's-row, or the body deposited there - was made this afternoon by Mrs. Harriet Lilley, who lives two doors from the spot where the deceased was discovered. Mrs. Lilley said: - I slept in front of the house, and could hear everything that occurred in the street. On that Thursday night I was somehow very restless. Well, I heard something I mentioned to my husband in the morning. It was a painful moan - two or three faint gasps - and then it passed away. It was quite dark at the time, but a luggage went by as I heard the sounds. There was, too, a sound as of whispers underneath the window. I distinctly heard voices, but cannot say what was said - it was too faint. I then woke my husband, and said to him, "I don't know what possesses me, but I cannot sleep to-night." Mrs. Lilley added that as soon as she heard of the murder she came to the conclusion that the voices she heard were in some way connected with it. The cries were very different from those of an ordinary street brawl. It has been ascertained that on the morning of the date of the murder a goods train passed on the East London Railway at about half-past three - the 3.7 out from New-cross - which was probably the time when Mary Ann Nicholls was either killed or placed in Buck's-row.

ROBERT MANN, Witness at Mary Ann Nichols' and Annie Chapman's inquests. Recently alleged suspect.

Born c.1835, Mile End New Town. A pauper inmate at the Whitechapel Workhouse described as a dock Worker, Mann was in charge of the workhouse mortuary in Old Montague Street on the morning of 31st August 1888. He stated that on that morning, he was summoned by police to attend to a body at the mortuary. He arrived at about 5.00am, remaining there until the body was taken inside. He then locked the doors and went for his breakfast. After breakfast, Mann returned to the mortuary with fellow inmate James Hatfield and undressed the body. He did not recall being told not to touch the body and could not remember if Inspector Joseph Helson was in attendance. He also stated that the clothing was neither torn nor cut, but could not remember where the blood was. He said that Hatfield had to cut the clothing down the front to remove it. At the Nichols inquest, coroner Wynne Baxter noted that Robert Mann was subject to fits and that his statements were 'hardly reliable'. Mann was also present at the Annie Chapman inquest, though it was not universally mentioned in the press: Robert Mann: I have charge of the Whitechapel mortuary. On Saturday last I received the body of the deceased at the mortuary about seven o'clock. I was there most of the day. No one touched the body until the nurses came over and undressed it. I remained at the mortuary until the doctor arrived, and the door was locked. The police were in charge of it. No one touched the body except the nurses. I was not present when they laid the corpse out. The nurses mentioned in the above account were Mary Simonds and and Frances Wright). Robert Mann died of phthisis in Whitechapel in 1896.

JONAS MIZEN, Police Constable Jonas Mizen, 56H

Witness at Mary Ann Nichols' inquest. Born 1848 in Radwinter, Essex. Originally a gardener based in Mitcham, Surrey, he joined the Metropolitan Police in 1873, warrant no.56678, serving in H-division (Whitechapel) throughout his career. PC Mizen was on 'knocking up' duty in Hanbury Street at 4.15am on 31st August 1888 when he was approached by Charles Cross and Robert Paul. Cross said "you are wanted in Baker's Row" and after some explanation, Mizen went to Buck's Row where he found PC John Neil, some local residents and the body of Nichols. Mizen was sent by Neil to fetch the ambulance. Mizen had assured the inquest that he did not continue 'knocking up' before going to Buck's Row. He retired in 1898.

MARY ANN MONK, Witness at Mary Ann Nichols' inquest. Described as a 'young woman with a flushed face and a haughty air', she was a former inmate of the Lambeth Workhouse and she knew Nichols from her time there six or seven years previously. She also claimed to have last seen her six weeks previously in a pub in the New Kent Road and drank with her. Mary Ann Monk was the first person to positively identify Nichols' body in the mortuary at 7.30pm, 31st August 1888.

PATRICK MULSHAW, Witness at Mary Ann Nichols' inquest. Born c.1857 in Spitalfields, In 1861, the family were living at 5 Thrawl Street, Spitalfields. Ten years later they were residing at 17 Goulston Court, Goulston Street.

In 1888 he was living at 3 Rupert Street, Whitechapel and was a night porter in the employ of the Whitechapel District Board of Works. On the night of August 30th 1888, he was at the back of the Working Lad's Institute watching some sewer works - he started work at 4.45pm and was situated in Winthrop Street. He remained at his post until 5.55am the next morning. He had dozed a few times during the night, but believed he was not asleep between 3.00 and 4.00am. He did not see anyone around after midnight and heard no cries for assistance. He did however, see two constables, one of whom was PC John Neil, but he couldn't say what time that would have been.

A man later passed by and said "Watchman, old man, I believe somebody is murdered down the street". Mulshaw promptly went to Buck's Row and saw several police officers and working-men standing by Mary Ann Nichols' body. Patrick Mulshaw was later recorded as living with his mother and several brothers at 33 John Street, St George in the East and was described as a general Worker.

JAMES MUMFORD, not called to Mary Ann Nichols' inquest. Born c.1853, Whitechapel, married to Emma (b.1855). A horse slaughter man employed at Harrison, Barber & Co, Winthrop Street. After being informed of the murder of Mary Ann Nichols by PC John Thain at 4.15am, 31st August 1888, Mumford accompanied co-workers Henry Tomkins and Charles Bretton to the scene in Buck's Row. In 1891, Mumford is recorded as living at 22 Winthrop Street opposite the slaughterhouse with his wife and three children, James b.1886, Frederick b.1889 and Alice b.1891

JOHN NEIL, Police Constable John Neil, 97J Witness at Mary Ann Nichols' inquest. Born 1850, County Cork, Ireland. Joined Metropolitan Police in 1875, J-division Bethnal Green throughout his career. Married to Mary b.1850 with two daughters, Henrietta b.1880 and Julia b.1881. PC Neil discovered the body of Mary Ann Nichols whilst on beat duty at approximately 3.45am, 31st August 1888. He had walked from Thomas Street into Buck's Row and was heading eastwards towards Brady Street. Hearing PC John Thain walking along Brady Street, he summoned him with his lamp and later, he was joined by PC Jonas Mizen who had been alerted to the discovery of Nichols' body by the carmen Charles Cross and Robert Paul. It is likely that Neil missed Cross and Paul by minutes and testified that he saw nobody about. The furthest he had been from the murder spot all night was Baker's Row. With the aid of his lamp, he noticed the wound to Nichols' throat and that blood was still oozing out. He felt her arm, which he claimed was still warm and noted that her eyes were wide open. Her bonnet was lying nearby. He immediately dispatched PC Thain to fetch Dr. Rees Ralph Llewellyn and told PC Mizen to fetch the ambulance. Whilst waiting for Dr. Llewellyn, he was joined by Henry Tomkins, James Mumford and Charles Bretton who worked at Harrison, Barber & Co, horse slaughterers in nearby Winthrop Street and who he had seen at 3.15am, ie thirty minutes before finding Nichols' body. Neil also rung the bell of Essex Wharf to enquire if a disturbance had been heard, to which the answer was 'no', as well as examining the area around the body, on which he found no traces of wheel-marks. PC Neil remained with the body (in accordance with procedure) until it was removed to the mortuary. In 1889, John Neil was a reserve police officer, JR 11. He retired from service in 1897 after receiving an injury whilst on duty.

ROBERT PAUL, Born 1857, Mile End, London. Married to Julia Hurley, father of eight children: from 1880to 1895, Robert Paul was a carman working in Corbett's Court off Hanbury Street, Spitalfields, he lived at 30 Foster Street, Whitechapel. He was on his way to work as he passed down Buck's Row at approx. 3.45am on 31st August 1888, when he was approached by Charles Cross who had just discovered the body of Mary Ann Nichols. Paul felt her face and hands and said "I think she's breathing but it's very little if she is". He thought she may be dead. Paul suggested they try and move the body and Cross refused, though as Paul rearranged Nichols' clothing, he touched her breast, believing there to have been some slight movement. The two men continued their walk to work, first approaching PC Jonas Mizen to tell him of their find, before Paul left Cross at Hanbury Street to go into work at Corbett's Court.

WALTER PURKISS, Born Walter Boyton Purkiss, c.1855, Braintree, Essex. In 1881, Purkiss is listed as living at New Cottage, Buck's Row with his wife Mary Ann, children Sydney b.1878, Lillian b.1877 and Florence b.1880 as well as Mary Anne's mother, Sophia Ballard. His occupation was carpenter and joiner. By 1888, the Purkiss family had moved to Essex Wharf where Purkiss was the manager. Walter and Mary Ann slept in the front first floor room, overlooking the murder site. On the evening of August 30th, they had gone to bed at about 11pm, but were awake at various times during the night - Walter was awake between 1.00am and 3.00am and his wife, having had a particularly sleepless night, was pacing the room at approx. 3.30am (or about the time of Nichols' murder). Neither had heard anything out of the ordinary and were not aware of the incident until PC John Neil called at their door.

JOHN SPRATLING, Inspector John Thomas Spratling. Witness at Mary Ann Nichols' inquest. Born 1845, St. Pancras, London. Joined Metropolitan Police in 1870 after working as a clerk. Married to Emma b.1847, Edgeware) with two children, Herbert (b.1880) and Frederick (b. 1882), Herbert dies 1889. Was rapidly promoted to Inspector of J-division(Bethnal Green) in 1887. Lived in Gore Road, Hackney. Spratling was called to Buck's Row at 4.30am, 31st August 1888, after Nichols' body had been taken to the mortuary. James Green, son of Emma Green who lived at New Cottage, had just washed away the blood, although traces could still be seen between the cobblestones. On going to the mortuary, he found that the body was still on the ambulance in the yard and whilst waiting for the attendant, proceeded to take a description of the deceased, although at this time he was not aware of any wounds on the body. Once inside, he undertook a more detailed examination and found that Nichols had been disemboweled. He at once sent for Dr. Rees Ralph Llewellyn. With Sergeant George Godley, Spratling made an examination of the East London and District Railway embankments and lines, as well as the Great Eastern Railway yard, but neither found any further evidence. Spratling questioned a constable who had been on duty at the Great Eastern Railway yard, but he had not heard anything. Questions were asked at several houses in Buck's Row, including New Cottage, Essex Wharf and the Board School - the caretaker of the school had also claimed to have heard nothing on the night of the murder. Inspector Spratling is said to have boasted that he smoked blacker tobacco and drank blacker tea than anyone else in the force and apparently lived so long that he subsequently drew more in pension than in pay. He retired in 1897 and moved out of London to Mortimer in Berkshire. He died in Reading in 1935.

JOHN THAIN, Police Constable John Thain, 96-J. Witness at Mary Ann Nichols' inquest. Born 1854 in Winston, Suffolk. Married to Elizabeth (b.1854) with one daughter, Lydia (b.1890). In 1881 he was listed as a Police Officer on the docks at Woolwich. Thain's beat took him along Brady Street and he passed the junction with Buck's Row every thirty minutes. At 3.45am, 31st August 1888, PC Thain was signalled by PC John Neil and went to find him standing by Nichols' body. He was sent to fetch Dr Rees Ralph Llewellyn and on his return found that Neil had been joined by two workmen. Thain helped to put the body on the ambulance and noted that the back of her dress was saturated with blood, which covered his hands. He stayed at the murder site whilst the body was taken to the mortuary, awaiting the arrival of Inspector John Spratling. He also witnessed the washing away of the blood by Emma Green's son. Afterwards, he searched Essex Wharf, the Great Eastern and East London railways, as well as the District Railway as far as Thomas Street, but found no weapon or other traces of blood. However, he was not involved in any house-to-house enquiries in Buck's Row itself.

HENRY TOMKINS, Witness at Mary Ann Nichols' inquest. Horse slaughterer employed by Harrison, Barber & Co, Winthrop Street. occupier of 12 Coventry Street, Bethnal Green. habitually describe as 'rough looking' and 'a roughly dressed young fellow of low stature' At about 12.20am, 31st August 1888, Tomkins and fellow employee Charles Bretton left the slaughterhouse for a stroll to Wood's Buildings and returned to work at 1.00am. The gates of the slaughterhouse were open and all was quiet. He did not recall hearing anything untoward and saw nobody about until PC John Thain came to collect his cape at 4.15am and told him of the murder. Tomkins went to Buck's Row with James Mumford and Bretton to see the body. Apparently by that time there were three or four constables and a doctor present. This testimony conflicts with that of PC Thain who claimed that the workmen were already there when he arrived with Dr Rees Ralph Llewellyn.

Inquest testimony

as reported in The Times:

"Five 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 the clothes. There were no injuries about the body until just about 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 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 form left to right and might have been done by a left handed person. All the injuries had been caused by the same instrument."

Inspector Joseph Helson, J-division, is notified of the murder at 6.45am and at the mortuary he is shown the body and the extent of the mutilations. With all of her faults Nichols seems to have been well-liked by all who knew her. At the inquest her father says, "I don't think she had any enemies, she was too good for that."

Inquest: Mary Ann "Polly" Nichols

(The Daily Telegraph, Monday, September 3, 1888)

On Saturday [1 Sep] Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, the coroner for South-East Middlesex, opened an inquiry at the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel-road, into the circumstances attending the death of a woman supposed to be Mary Ann Nicholls, who was discovered lying dead on the pavement in Buck's-row, Baker's-row, Whitechapel, early on Friday morning. Her throat was cut, and she had other terrible injuries.

Inspector Helston, who has the case in hand, attended, with other officers, on behalf of the Criminal Investigation Department.

Edward Walker deposed: I live at 15, Maidwell-street, Albany-road, Camberwell, and have no occupation. I was a smith when I was at work, but I am not now. I have seen the body in the mortuary, and to the best of my belief it is my daughter; but I have not seen her for three years. I recognize her by her general appearance and by a little mark she has had on her forehead since she was a child. She also had either one or two teeth out, the same as the woman I have just seen. My daughter's name was Mary Ann Nicholls, and she had been married twenty-two years. Her husband's name is William Nicholls, and he is alive. He is a machinist. They have been living apart about seven or eight years. I last heard of her before Easter. She was forty-two years of age.

The Coroner: How did you see her?

Witness: She wrote to me.

The Coroner: Is this letter in her handwriting?

Witness: Yes, that is her writing. The letter, which was dated April 17, 1888, was read by the Coroner, and referred to a place which the deceased had gone to at Wandsworth.

The Coroner: When did you last see her alive?

Witness: Two years ago last June.

The Coroner: Was she then in a good situation?

Witness: I don't know. I was not on speaking terms with her. She had been living with me three or four years previously, but thought she could better herself, so I let her go.

The Coroner: What did she do after she left you?

Witness: I don't know.

The Coroner: This letter seems to suggest that she was in a decent situation.

Witness: She had only just gone there.

The Coroner: Was she a sober woman?

Witness: Well, at times she drank, and that was why we did not agree.

The Coroner: Was she fast?

Witness: No; I never heard of anything of that sort. She used to go with some young women and men that she knew, but I never heard of anything improper.

The Coroner: Have you any idea what she has been doing lately?

Witness: I have not the slightest idea.

The Coroner: She must have drunk heavily for you to turn her out of doors?

Witness: I never turned her out. She had no need to be like this while I had a home for her.

The Coroner: How is it that she and her husband were not living together?

Witness: When she was confined her husband took on with the young woman who came to nurse her, and they parted, he living with the nurse, by whom he has another family.

The Coroner: Have you any reasonable doubt that this is your daughter?

Witness: No, I have not. I know nothing about her acquaintances, or what she had been doing for a living. I had no idea she was over here in this part of the town. She has had five children, the eldest being twenty-one years old and the youngest eight or nine years. One of them lives with me, and the other four are with their father.

The Coroner: Has she ever lived with anybody since she left her husband?

Witness: I believe she was once stopping with a man in York-street, Walworth. His name was Drew, and he was a smith by trade. He is living there now, I believe. The parish of Lambeth summoned her husband for the keep of the children, but the summons was dismissed, as it was proved that she was then living with another man. I don't know who that man was.

The Coroner: Was she ever in the workhouse?

Witness: Yes, sir; Lambeth Workhouse, in April last, and went from there to a situation at Wandsworth.

By the Jury: The husband resides at Coburg-road, Old Kent-road. I don't know if he knows of her death.

Coroner: Is there anything you know of likely to throw any light upon this affair?

Witness: No; I don't think she had any enemies, she was too good for that.

John Neil, police-constable, 97J, said: Yesterday morning I was proceeding down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady-street. There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previously, and I saw no one then. I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. The gateway was closed. It was about nine or ten feet high, and led to some stables. There were houses from the gateway eastward, and the School Board school occupies the westward. On the opposite side of the road is Essex Wharf. Deceased was lying lengthways along the street, her left hand touching the gate. I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat. She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged. I felt her arm, which was quite warm from the joints upwards. Her eyes were wide open. Her bonnet was off and lying at her side, close to the left hand. I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him. I did not whistle. I said to him, "Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn," and, seeing another constable in Baker's-row, I sent him for the ambulance. The doctor arrived in a very short time. I had, in the meantime, rung the bell at Essex Wharf, and asked if any disturbance had been heard. The reply was "No." Sergeant Kirby came after, and he knocked. The doctor looked at the woman and then said, "Move her to the mortuary. She is dead, and I will make a further examination of her." We placed her on the ambulance, and moved her there. Inspector Spratley came to the mortuary, and while taking a description of the deceased turned up her clothes, and found that she was disemboweled. This had not been noticed by any of them before. On the body was found a piece of comb and a bit of looking-glass. No money was found, but an unmarked white handkerchief was found in her pocket.

The Coroner: Did you notice any blood where she was found?

Witness: There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. It was running from the wound in her neck.

The Coroner: Did you hear any noise that night?

Witness: No; I heard nothing. The farthest I had been that night was just through the Whitechapel-road and up Baker's-row. I was never far away from the spot.

The Coroner: Whitechapel-road is busy in the early morning, I believe. Could anybody have escaped that way?

Witness: Oh yes, sir. I saw a number of women in the main road going home. At that time any one could have got away.

The Coroner: Some one searched the ground, I believe?

Witness: Yes; I examined it while the doctor was being sent for.

Inspector Spratley: I examined the road, sir, in daylight.

A Juryman (to witness): Did you see a trap in the road at all?

Witness: No.

A Juryman: Knowing that the body was warm, did it not strike you that it might just have been laid there, and that the woman was killed elsewhere?

Witness: I examined the road, but did not see the mark of wheels. The first to arrive on the scene after I had discovered the body were two men who work at a slaughterhouse opposite. They said they knew nothing of the affair, and that they had not heard any screams. I had previously seen the men at work. That would be about a quarter-past three, or half an hour before I found the body.

Henry Llewellyn, surgeon, said: On Friday morning I was called to Buck's-row about four o'clock. The constable told me what I was wanted for. On reaching Buck's-row I found the deceased woman lying flat on her back in the pathway, her legs extended. I found she was dead, and that she had severe injuries to her throat. Her hands and wrists were cold, but the body and lower extremities were warm. I examined her chest and felt the heart. It was dark at the time. I believe she had not been dead more than half-an-hour. I am quite certain that the injuries to her neck were not self-inflicted. There was very little blood round the neck. There were no marks of any struggle or of blood, as if the body had been dragged. I told the police to take her to the mortuary, and I would make another examination. About an hour later I was sent for by the Inspector to see the injuries he had discovered on the body. I went, and saw that the abdomen was cut very extensively. I have this morning made a post-mortem examination of the body. I found it to be that of a female about forty or forty-five years. Five of the teeth are missing, and there is a slight laceration of the tongue. On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw. It might have been caused by a blow with the fist or pressure by the thumb. On the left side of the face there was a circular bruise, which also might have been done by the pressure of the fingers. On the left side of the neck, about an inch below the jaw, there was an incision about four inches long and running from a point immediately below the ear. An inch below on the same side, and commencing about an inch in front of it, was a circular incision terminating at a point about three inches below the right jaw. This incision completely severs all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision is about eight inches long. These cuts must have been caused with a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence. No blood at all was found on the breast either of the body or clothes. There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards. All these had been caused by a knife, which had been used violently and been used downwards. The wounds were from left to right, and might have been done by a left-handed person. All the injuries had been done by the same instrument.

Day 2,

Monday, September 3, 1888

(The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, September 4, 1888)

Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, the coroner for South-East Middlesex, yesterday [3 Sep] resumed his inquiry at the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel-road, into the circumstances attending the death of the woman Mary Ann Nicholls, who was discovered lying dead on the pavement in Buck's-row, Baker's-row, Whitechapel, early on Friday morning last. Inspectors Helston and Aberline attended for the police; whilst Detective- sergeant Enright, of Scotland-year, was also in attendance.

Inspector John Spratling, J Division, deposed that he first heard of the murder about half-past four on Friday morning, while he was in Hackney-road. He proceeded to Buck's-row, where he saw Police-constable Thain, who showed him the place where the deceased had been found. He noticed a blood stain on the footpath. The body of deceased had been removed to the mortuary in Old Montague- street, where witness had an opportunity of preparing a description. The skin presented the appearance of not having been washed for some time previous to the murder. On his arrival Dr. Llewellyn made an examination of the body which lasted about ten minutes. Witness said he next saw the body when it was stripped.

Detective-sergeant Enright: That was done by two of the workhouse officials.

The Coroner: Had they any authority to strip the body?

Witness: No, sir; I gave them no instructions to strip it. In fact, I told them to leave it as it was.

The Coroner: I don't object to their stripping the body, but we ought to have evidence about the clothes.

Sergeant Enright, continuing, said the clothes, which were lying in a heap in the yard, consisted of a reddish-brown ulster, with seven large brass buttons, and a brown dress, which looked new. There were also a woollen and a flannel petticoat, belonging to the workhouse. Inspector Helson had cut out pieces marked "P. R., Princes-road," with a view to tracing the body. There was also a pair of stays, in fairly good condition, but witness did not notice how they were adjusted.

The Coroner said he considered it important to know the exact state in which the stays were found.

On the suggestion of Inspector Aberline, the clothes were sent for.

The Foreman of the jury asked whether the stays were fastened on the body.

Inspector Spratling replied that he could not say for certain. There was blood on the upper part of the dress body, and also on the Ulster, but he only saw a little on the under-linen, and that might have happened after the removal of the body from Buck's-row. The clothes were fastened when he first saw the body. The stays did not fit very tightly, for he was able to see the wounds without unfastening them. About six o'clock that day he made an examination at Buck's- row and Brady-street, which ran across Baker's-row, but he failed to trace any marks of blood. He subsequently examined, in company with Sergeant Godley, the East London and District Railway lines and embankment, and also the Great Eastern Railway yard, without, however, finding any traces. A watchman of the Great Eastern Railway, whose box was fifty or sixty yards from the spot where the body was discovered, heard nothing particular on the night of the murder.

Witness also visited half a dozen persons living in the same neighborhood, none of whom had noticed anything at all suspicious. One of these, Mrs. Purkiss, had not gone to bed at the time the body of deceased was found, and her husband was of opinion that if there had been any screaming in Buck's-row they would have heard it. A Mrs. Green, whose window looked out upon the very spot where the body was discovered, said nothing had attracted her attention on the morning of Friday last. Replying to a question from one of the jury, witness stated that Constable Neil was the only one whose duty it was to pass through Buck's-row, but another constable passing along Broad-street from time to time would be within hearing distance. In reply to a juryman, witness said it was his firm belief that the woman had her clothes on at the time she was murdered.

Henry Tomkins, horse-slaughterer, 12, Coventry-street, Bethnal-green, was the next witness. He deposed that he was in the employ of Messrs. Barber, and was working in the slaughterhouse, Winthrop-street, from between eight and nine o'clock on Thursday evening till twenty minutes past four on Friday morning. He and his fellow workmen usually went home upon finishing their work, but on that morning they did not do so. They went to see the dead woman, Police-constable Thain having passed the slaughterhouse at about a quarter-past four, and told them that a murder had been committed in Buck's-row. Two other men, James Mumford and Charles Britten, had been working in the slaughterhouse. He (witness) and Britten left the slaughterhouse for one hour between midnight and one o'clock in the morning, but not afterwards till they went to see the body. The distance from Winthrop-street to Buck's-row was not great.

The Coroner: Is your work noisy?

Witness: No, sir, very quiet.

The Coroner: Was it quiet on Friday morning, say after two o'clock?

Witness: Yes, sir, quite quiet. The gates were open and we heard no cry.

The Coroner: Did anybody come to the slaughterhouse that night?

Witness: Nobody passed except the policeman.

The Coroner: Are there any women about there?

Witness: Oh! I know nothing about them, I don't like 'em.

The Coroner: I did not ask you whether you like them; I ask you whether there were any about that night.

Witness: I did not see any.

The Coroner: Not in Whitechapel-road?

Witness: Oh, yes, there, of all sorts and sizes; its a rough neighborhood, I can tell you.

Witness, in reply to further questions, said the slaughter-house was too far away from the spot where deceased was found for him to have heard if anybody had called for assistance. When he arrived at Buck's-row the doctor and two or three policemen were there. He believed that two other men, whom he did not know, were also there. He waited till the body was taken away, previous to which about a dozen men came up. He heard no statement as to how the deceased came to be in Buck's-row.

The Coroner: Have you read any statement in the newspapers that there were two people, besides the police and the doctor, in Buck's-row, when you arrived?

Witness: I cannot say, sir.

The Coroner: Then you did not see a soul from one o'clock on Friday morning till a quarter-past four, when the policeman passed your slaughterhouse?

Witness: No, sir.

A Juryman: Did you hear any vehicle pass the slaughterhouse? - No, sir.

[Juryman?] Would you have heard it if there had been one? - Yes, sir.

[Juryman?] Where did you go between twenty minutes past twelve and one o'clock? - I and my mate went to the front of the road.

[Juryman?] Is not your usual hour for leaving off work six o'clock in the morning, and not four? - No; it is according to what we have to do. Sometimes it is one time and sometimes another.

[Juryman?] What made the constable come and tell you about the murder? – Tomkins: He called for his cape.

* described as 'rough looking' and 'a roughly dressed young fellow of low stature (Police illustrated) He drunk Beer with Friends as Nicholls be Killed. Can not read or write.

Inspector Helson deposed that he first received information about the murder at a quarter before seven on Friday morning. He afterwards went to the mortuary, where he saw the body with the clothes still on it. The dress was fastened in front, with the exception of a few buttons, the stays, which were attached with clasps, were also fastened. He noticed blood on the hair, and on the collars of the dress and Ulster, but not on the back of the skirts. There were no cuts in the clothes, and no indications of any struggle having taken place. The only suspicious mark discovered in the neighborhood of Buck's-row was in Broad-street, where there was a stain which might have been blood. Witness was of opinion that the body had not been carried to Buck's-row, but that the murder was committed on the spot.

Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a car man who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body.

Andrew Cross, car man, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row. He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement." They both crossed over to the body, and witness took hold of the woman's hands, which were cold and limp. Witness said, "I believe she is dead." He touched her face, which felt warm. The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. Just then they heard a policeman coming. Witness did not notice that her throat was cut, the night being very dark. He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met the last witness, whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on. The other man left witness soon after. Witness had never seen him before. Replying to the coroner, witness denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row. There was nobody there when he and the other man left. In his opinion deceased looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but he had no idea that there were any serious injuries.

 Charles Cross a Suspect

The Coroner: Did the other man tell you who he was?

Witness: No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself.

A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?

Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.

Nicholls: printer's machinist, Coburg-road, Old Kent-road, said deceased was his wife, but they had lived apart for eight years. He last saw her alive about three years ago, and had not heard from her since. He did not know what she had been doing in the meantime.

A Juryman: It is said that you were summoned by the Lambeth Union for her maintenance, and you pleaded that she was living with another man. Was he the blacksmith whom she had lived with?

Witness: No; it was not the same; it was another man. I had her watched. Witness further deposed that he did not leave his wife, but that she left him of her own accord. She had no occasion for so doing. If it had not been for her drinking habits they would have got on all right together.

Emily Holland, a married woman, living at 18, Thrawl-street, said deceased had stayed at her lodgings for about six weeks, but had not been there during the last ten days or so. About half-past two on Friday morning witness saw deceased walking down Osborne-street, Whitechapel-road. She was alone, and very much the worse for drink. She informed witness that where she had been living they would not allow her to return because she could not pay for her room. Witness persuaded her to go home. She refused, adding that she had earned her lodging money three times that day. She then went along the Whitechapel-road. Witness did not know in what way she obtained a living. She always seemed to her to be a quiet woman, and kept very much to herself. In reply to further questions witness said she had never seen deceased quarrel with anybody. She gave her the impression of being weighed down by some trouble. When she left the witness at the corner of Osborne-street, she said she would soon be back.

* A friend of Nichols who shared a room with her and four other women at Wilmott's Lodging House, 18 Thrawl Street. Holland positively identified the body of Nichols after Mary Ann Monk suggested that the deceased may have been the woman she knew from the Lambeth Workhouse. Holland had returned from watching a fire at the Shadwell Dry Dock at about 2.30am on the 31st August 1888 and met Nichols at the junction of Osborn Street and Whitechapel Road. Nichols claimed that she had earned her doss money three times that night, but had spent it (she was by this time particularly drunk) and was adamant that she would earn it again, refusing to return to Wilmott's with Holland. She allegedly claimed she wanted to go somewhere where she could share a bed with a man (presumably The White House at 56 Flower and Dean Street).

Mary Ann Monk was the last witness examined. She deposed to having seen deceased about seven o'clock entering a public-house in the New Kent-road. She had seen her before in the workhouse, and had no knowledge of her means of livelihood.

Day 3, Monday, September 17, 1888

Dr. Llewellyn, recalled, said he had re-examined the body and there was no part of the viscera missing.

Mrs. Emma Green, living at New-cottage, Buck's-row, stated that she was a widow, and occupied the cottage next to where the deceased was found. Her daughter and two sons lived with her. Witness went to bed about 11 o'clock on the night of Thursday, August 30, and one of her sons went to bed at 9 o'clock and the other one at a quarter to 10. Her daughter went to bed when she did, and they occupied the same room. It was a front room on the first floor. Witness did not remember waking up until she heard a knock at the front door about 4 o'clock in the morning. She opened the window and saw three or four constables and two or three other men. She saw the body of deceased lying on the ground, but it was still too dark to clearly distinguish what had happened. Witness heard nothing unusual during the night, and neither her sons or daughter awoke.

By the Jury. - She was a light sleeper, and had a scream been given she would have heard it, though people often went through Buck's-row, and there was often a great noise in it. She did not believe there was any disorderly house in Buck's-row. She knew of no disorderly house in the immediate neighborhoods.

By the CORONER. - She saw her son go out, directly the body was removed, with a pail of water to wash the stains of blood away. A constable was with him.

Thomas Ede, a signalman and a ex Constable in the employ of the East London Railway Company, said he saw a man with a knife on the morning of the 8th.

The coroner was of opinion that this incident could have no reference to the present inquiry, as the 8th was the day of the Hanbury-street murder. He would, however, accept the evidence.

Witness: On Saturday, the 8th inst., at noon, I was coming down the Cambridge-heath-road, and when near the Forester's Arms I saw a man on the other side of the street. His peculiar appearance made me take notice of him. He seemed to have a wooden arm. I watched him until level with the Forester's Arms, and then he put his hand to his trouser's pocket, and I saw about four inches of a knife. I followed him, but he quickened his pace, and I lost sight of him.

Inspector Helson, in reply to the coroner, stated that the man had not been found.

Ede described the man as 5 ft. 8 in. high, about thirty-five years of age, with a dark moustache and whiskers. He wore a double-peaked cap, a short dark brown jacket, and a pair of clean white overalls over dark trousers. The man walked as though he had a stiff knee, and he had a fearful look about the eyes. He seemed to be a mechanic. By the Jury: He was not a muscular man.

Walter Purkiss, manager, residing at Essex Wharf, deposed that his house fronted Buck's-row, opposite the gates where deceased was discovered. He slept in the front room on the second floor and had heard no sound, neither had his wife.

Alfred Mulshaw, a night watchman in Winthorpe-street, had also heard no cries or noise. He admitted that he sometimes dozed.

The Coroner: I suppose your watching is not up to much?

The Witness: I don't know. It is thirteen long hours for 3s and bring your own coke. (Laughter.) By the Jury: In a straight line I was about thirty yards from the spot where the deceased was found.

Police-constable John Thain stated that the nearest point on his beat to Buck's- row was Brady-street. He passed the end every thirty minutes on the Thursday night, and nothing attracted his attention until 3.45 a.m., when he was signaled by the flash of the lantern of another constable (Neale). He went to him, and found Neale standing by the body of the deceased, and witness was dispatched for a doctor. About ten minutes after he had fetched the surgeon he saw two workmen standing with Neale. He did not know who they were. The body was taken to the mortuary, and witnessed remained on the spot. Witness searched Essex Wharf, the Great Eastern Railway arches, the East London Railway line, and the District Railway as far as Thames-street, and detected no marks of blood or anything of a suspicious character. By the Jury: When I went to the horse-slaughterer's for my cape I did not say that I was going to fetch a doctor, as a murder had been committed. Another constable had taken my cape there. By the Coroner: There were one or two working men going down Brady-street shortly before I was called by Neale.

Robert Paul, 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, car man, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway. He felt her hands and face, and they were cold. The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint. The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman. Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman. Before he reached Buck's-row he had seen no one running away.

Robert Mann, the keeper of the mortuary, said the police came to the workhouse, of which he was an inmate. He went, in consequence, to the mortuary at five a.m. He saw the body placed there, and then locked the place up and kept the keys. After breakfast witness and Hatfield, another inmate of the workhouse, undressed the woman.

[Coroner] The police were not present?

- No; there was no one present. Inspector Helson was not there.

[Coroner] Had you been told not to touch it?

- No.

[Coroner] Did you see Inspector Helson?

- I can't say.

[Coroner] Was he present?

- I can't say.

[Coroner] I suppose you do not recollect whether the clothes were torn?

- They were not torn or cut.

[Coroner] You cannot describe where the blood was?

- No, sir; I cannot.

[Coroner] How did you get the clothes off?

- Hatfield had to cut them down the front.

A Juryman: Was the body undressed in the mortuary or in the yard?

- In the mortuary.

The Coroner: It appears the mortuary-keeper is subject to fits, and neither his memory nor statements are reliable.

James Hatfield, an inmate of the Whitechapel Workhouse, said he accompanied Mann, the last witness, to the mortuary, and undressed the deceased. Inspector Helson was not there.

[Coroner] Who was there?

- Only me and my mate.

[Coroner] What did you take off first?

- An Ulster, which I put aside on the ground. We then took the jacket off, and put it in the same place. The outside dress was loose, and we did not cut it. The bands of the petticoats were cut, and I then tore them down with my hand. I tore the chemise down the front. There were no stays.

[Coroner] Who gave you instructions to do all this?

- No one gave us any. We did it to have the body ready for the doctor.

[Coroner] Who told you a doctor was coming?

- I heard someone speak about it.

[Coroner] Was any one present whilst you were undressing the body?

- Not as I was aware of.

[Coroner] Having finished, did you make the post-mortem examination?

- No, the police came.

[Coroner] Oh, it was not necessary for you to go on with it! The police came? - Yes, they examined the petticoats, and found the words "Lambeth Workhouse" on the bands.

[Coroner] It was cut out?

- I cut it out.

[Coroner] Who told you to do it?

- Inspector Helson.

[Coroner] Is that the first time you saw Inspector Helson on that morning?

- Yes; I arrived at about half-past six.

[Coroner] Would you be surprised to find that there were stays?

- No.

A juryman: Did not you try the stays on in the afternoon to show me how short they were.

- I forgot it.

The Coroner: He admits that his memory is bad.

Witness: Yes.

* Robert Mann A Suspect Born c.1835? 1837?, Mile End New Town. A inmate at the Whitechapel Workhouse. Mann was in charge of the workhouse mortuary in Old Montague Street on the morning of 31st August 1888. He stated that on that morning, he was summoned by police to attend to a body at the mortuary. He arrived at about 5.00am, remaining there until the body was taken inside. He then locked the doors and went for his breakfast. After breakfast, Mann returned to the mortuary with fellow inmate James Hatfield and undressed the body. He did not recall being told not to touch the body and could not remember if Inspector Joseph Helson was in attendance. He also stated that the clothing was neither torn nor cut, but could not remember where the blood was. He said that Hatfield had to cut the clothing down the front to remove it. But as Inmate of a Workhouse he not the Time to be a Ripper.

The Coroner: We cannot do more. (To the police): There was a man who passed down Buck's-row when the doctor was examining the body. Have you heard anything of him?

Inspector Abberline: We have not been able to find him. Inspector Spratley, J Division, stated he had made inquiries in Buck's-row, but not at all of the houses.

*In interviews with the Pall Mall Gazette in 1903 Abberline put forward the idea that George Chapman may have been the Ripper saying "...I cannot help feeling that this is the man we struggled so hard to capture fifteen years ago." However, he also said that "Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago."

The Coroner: Then that will have to be done.

Witness added Spratling that he made inquiries at Green's, the wharf, Snider's factory, and also at the Great Eastern wharf, and no one had heard anything unusual on the morning of the murder. He had not called at any of the houses in Buck's-row, excepting at Mrs. Green's. He had seen the Board School keeper.

The Coroner: Is there not a gentleman at the G.E. Railway? I thought we should have had him here.

Witness: I saw him that morning, but he said he had heard nothing.

The witness added that when at the mortuary he had given instructions that the body was not to be touched.

The Coroner: Is there any other evidence?

Inspector Helson: No, not at present.

The Foreman thought that, had a reward been offered by the Government after the murder in George-yard, very probably the two later murders would not have been perpetrated. It mattered little into whose hands the money went so long as they could find out the monster in their midst, who was terrorizing everybody and making people ill. There were four horrible murders remaining undiscovered. The Coroner considered that the first one was the worst, and it had attracted the least attention. The Foreman intimated that he would be willing to give £25 himself, and he hoped that the Government would offer a reward. These poor people had souls like anybody else. The Coroner understood that no rewards were now offered in any case. It mattered not whether the victims were rich or poor. There was no surety that a rich person would not be the next. The Foreman: If that should be, then there will be a large reward.

Inspector Helson, in reply to the coroner, said rewards had been discontinued for years.

Day 4,

Saturday, September 22, 1888

(The Daily Telegraph, Monday, September 24, 1888, Page 3)

Signalman Edes was recalled to supplement his previous evidence to the effect that he had seen a man named John James carrying a knife near the scene of the murder. It transpired, however, that this man is a harmless lunatic who is well known in the neighborhood.

The Police investigated John James he was definitely not the Whitechapel Murder

The Coroner then summed up. Having reviewed the career of the deceased from the time she left her husband, and reminded the jury of the irregular life she had led for the last two years, Mr. Baxter proceeded to point out that the unfortunate woman was last seen alive at half-past two o'clock on Saturday morning, Sept 1, by Mrs. Holland, who knew her well. Deceased was at that time much the worse for drink, and was endeavoring to walk eastward down Whitechapel. What her exact movements were after this it was impossible to say; but in less than an hour and a quarter her dead body was discovered at a spot rather under three-quarters of a mile distant. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data. The condition of the body appeared to prove conclusively that the deceased was killed on the exact spot in which she was found. There was not a trace of blood anywhere, except at the spot where her neck was lying, this circumstance being sufficient to justify the assumption that the injuries to the throat were committed when the woman was on the ground, whilst the state of her clothing and the absence of any blood about her legs suggested that the abdominal injuries were inflicted whilst she was still in the same position. Coming to a consideration of the perpetrator of the murder, the Coroner said: It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection, for there must surely have been marks of blood about his person. If, however, blood was principally on his hands, the presence of so many slaughter-houses in the neighborhood would make the frequenters of this spot familiar with blood- stained clothes and hands, and his appearance might in that way have failed to attract attention while he passed from Buck's-row in the twilight into Whitechapel-road, and was lost sight of in the morning's market traffic. We cannot altogether leave unnoticed the fact that the death that you have been investigating is one of four presenting many points of similarity, all of which have occurred within the space of about five months, and all within a very short distance of the place where we are sitting. All four victims were women of middle age, all were married, and had lived apart from their husbands in consequence of intemperate habits, and were at the time of their death leading an irregular life, and eking out a miserable and precarious existence in common lodging-houses. In each case there were abdominal as well as other injuries. In each case the injuries were inflicted after midnight, and in places of public resort, where it would appear impossible but that almost immediate detection should follow the crime, and in each case the inhuman and dastardly criminals are at large in society. Emma Elizabeth Smith, who received her injuries in Osborn-street on the early morning of Easter Tuesday, April 3, survived in the London Hospital for upwards of twenty-four hours, and was able to state that she had been followed by some men, robbed and mutilated, and even to describe imperfectly one of them. Martha Tabram was found at three a.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 7, on the first floor landing of George-yard-buildings, Wentworth-street, with thirty-nine punctured wounds on her body. In addition to these, and the case under your consideration, there is the case of Annie Chapman, still in the hands of another jury. The instruments used in the two earlier cases are dissimilar. In the first it was a blunt instrument, such as a walking-stick; in the second, some of the wounds were thought to have been made by a dagger; but in the two recent cases the instruments suggested by the medical witnesses are not so different. Dr. Llewellyn says the injuries on Nicholls could have been produced by a strong bladed instrument, moderately sharp. Dr. Phillips is of opinion that those on Chapman were by a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, at least six to eight inches in length, probably longer. The similarity of the injuries in the two cases is considerable. There are bruises about the face in both cases; the head is nearly severed from the body in both cases; there are other dreadful injuries in both cases; and those injuries, again, have in each case been performed with anatomical knowledge. Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seems difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat, or how it comes about that there was so little bleeding from the several arteries, that the clothing on the upper surface was not stained, and, indeed, very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck. Surely it may well be that, as in the case of Chapman, the dreadful wounds to the throat were inflicted first and the others afterwards. This is a matter of some importance when we come to consider what possible motive there can be for all this ferocity. Robbery is out of the question; and there is nothing to suggest jealousy; there could not have been any quarrel, or it would have been heard. I suggest to you as a possibility that these two women may have been murdered by the same man with the same object, and that in the case of Nicholls the wretch was disturbed before he had accomplished his object, and having failed in the open street he tries again, within a week of his failure, in a more secluded place. If this should be correct, the audacity and daring is equal to its maniacal fanaticism and abhorrent wickedness. But this surmise may or may not be correct, the suggested motive may be the wrong one; but one thing is very clear - that a murder of a most atrocious character has been committed.

The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of willful murder against some person or persons unknown.

the late Victoria area more pubs than schools and doctors

Annie Chapman

aka

Dark Annie, Annie Siffey?

EDWARD BADHAM, Sergeant Edward Badham, 31H.

Witness at Annie Chapman's and Alice McKenzie's inquests. Born 1862 in Barnes, Middlesex. Joined Metropolitan Police in 1880. Married to Eliza b.1868 with four children. it was Sergeant Badham who transported the body of Annie Chapman to the mortuary on the ambulance. He appeared on the third day of the inquest (13th September 1888): Sergeant Badham, 31 H, stated that he conveyed the body of the deceased to the mortuary on the ambulance. [Coroner] Are you sure that you took every portion of the body away with you? - Yes. Coroner] Where did you deposit the body? - In the shed, still on the ambulance. I remained with it until Inspector Chandler arrived. Detective-Sergeant Thicke viewed the body, and I took down the description. There were present two women, who came to identify the body, and they described the clothing. They came from 35, Dorset-street. [Coroner] Who touched the clothing? - Sergeant Thicke. I did not see the women touch the clothing nor the body. I did not see Sergeant Thicke touch the body. The Manchester Guardian reported that Sgt. Badham accompanied Inspector Walter Beck to 13 Miller's Court after they were both notified of the murder of Mary Jane Kelly by a frantic Thomas Bowyer at about 11.00am, 9th November 1888. It is generally accepted that Beck was the first police official to arrive at the Kelly crime scene, though several police officials would subsequently claim they were the first to arrive Sgt. Badham was also on duty at Commercial Street Police Station on the evening of 12th November 1888. The inquest into the death of Mary Jane Kelly had finished earlier that day. At around 6.00pm, George Hutchinson arrived at the station claiming he had seen Kelly with a man of 'respectable appearance' on the night of her death. Badham took Hutchinson's initial statement that evening.

On the morning of 17th July 1889, Sergeant Badham was on duty inspecting beat constables when he was alerted to the discovery of Alice McKenzie's body by Walter Andrews PC in Castle Alley. His report, written the same day, reads:

I beg to report that at about 12.48am 17th inst. I visited PC 272H Walter Andrews in Castle Alley, Whitechapel. He being on the Beat No.11 on the 4th section. I said to him alright he replied alright Sergeant. I then left him and went to visit another PC on an adjoining beat. I had only got about 150 yards from PC 272H when I heard a whistle blow twice. I rushed to the bottom of Castle Alley and heard PC 272H say come on quick he ran up the alley, and I followed, and on the pavement closer to two vans on the right side of the footway I saw a woman lying on her right side with her clothes half up to her waist exposing the abdomen. I also noticed a quantity of blood under her head on the footway. The PC said there's another murder. I directed the PC not to leave the body or let anybody touch until the Dr. arrived. I got the assistance of PC 101H here and PC 423 Allen. The former PC I directed to search the place and sent PC 423 for the doctor, and Inspector. on duty, and on his return to make search. Other constables arrived shortly afterwards, also the local Inspector. Mr. Reid CID. I also hailed a passing cab and acquainted the Superintendent of what had taken place. Several men were drafted in different directions to make enquiries at Lodging Houses Coffe Houses &c to see if any suspicious man had recently entered them. The body was afterwards conveyed by me on the ambulance to the Whitechapel Mortuary where the body was searched by Reid who gave me a description of the body. Description age about 40 length 5ft 4 complexion pale hair and eyes brown top of thumb on left hand deficient also tooth deficient in upper jaw. Dress red stuff bodice patched under arms and sleeves with marone one black one marone stockings brown stuff skirt kilted brown lindsey petticoat, white chemise and apron, paisley shawl, button boots. all old nothing found on person. An old clay pipe and a farthing were found under the body. Sergeant Badham then appeared at the first day of the inquest, also 17th July 1889: About 12 minutes to 1 this morning I was in Old Castle-street and saw Constable Andrews. I went up to him and said, "All right?" He replied, "All right, sergeant." I then left him and went to visit another man on the adjoining beat. I then went to Pell-lane, when I heard two blows from a whistle. I listened for the second blow to ascertain from where it came. On hearing the second whistle I rushed up Newcastle-street and met Andrews who shouted out, "Come on, quick." I threw my cape to the ground and rushed up after him. I saw a woman lying on the pavement on the near side with her throat cut, and her head lying in a pool of blood. The legs and stomach were exposed. I got the assistance of other constables and blocked up the ends of the alley, and directed Constable 423H to fetch the doctor and acquaint the doctor on duty. I also directed Constable 101H to search the place and also the surrounding streets; and Constable 272H to remain with the body, and not to let any one touch it until the doctor arrived. Sergeant 21 H and the local inspector came up and made search. They were followed by Detective-Inspector Reid. I also acquainted the superintendent, and directed other constables to make careful inquiry at the lodging-houses, coffee-houses, and places where men were likely to go. In the meantime the doctor arrived. I also made search myself, but failed to find trace of any person that was likely to have committed the murder. [Coroner] Had you been in the alley at all that night? - No

ALBERT CADOSCH, Born 1860, Paris, France, Albert Cadosch was a carpenter, resident at 27 Hanbury Street, Spitalfields. Married to Alice, they had five children, Cadosch testified that on the morning of 8th September 1888, he got up at 5.15am and went into the yard, presumably to relieve himself. On going back to the house, he heard a voice say "No!" from behind the fence which divided the backyards of Nos.27 and 29 Hanbury Street. A few minutes later, he needed to use the yard again, whereupon he heard something touch the fence from the other side. His suspicions were not aroused as he had occasionally heard people in the yard of No.29 at that time of the morning. He did not hear the rustling of clothes and he did not look to see what was causing the noises. When he left the house, he noted that the clock of Christ Church read 5.32am. He did not see any man and woman together outside, nor did he see Mrs Elizabeth Long. The Cadosch family later moved to 44 Stamwell Street, Colchester, Essex. Maybe the discrepant between Long and Cadosch is that the Church Clock tower rings the Quarter hours, a quarter hour ring bell waked up Mister John Davis how’s found the body of Chapman.

JOSEPH CHANDLER, Inspector Joseph Chandler. Witness at Annie Chapman's inquest. Born Joseph Lewis Chandler in 1850, Northill, Bedfordshire. Original trade listed as carman. Joined Metropolitan Police in 1873 Married Martha Harris in 1874 and had five children; Inspector Chandler was on duty in Commercial Street at 6.02am, 8th September 1888 when he saw several men running up Hanbury Street, so he called them over. On being told of the discovery of the murder he went straight to 29 Hanbury Street and passed through the passage into the backyard. Chandler remained with the body and sent for Dr George Bagster Phillips, as well as other police assistance and an ambulance. He obtained some sacking (probably from James Kent)and covered the body. On the arrival of police reinforcements, he cleared the passage of onlookers and ensured that nobody touched the body until Dr Phillips had arrived. He had seen John Richardson in the passage of No.29 a little before 7am that morning and Richardson explained his movements about the house earlier on - he mentioned checking the cellar at 4.45am, being sure that the body was not there at the time, but said nothing about the trimming of his boot. Inspector Chandler examined the yard of No.27 next door and also helped draw a plan of the crime scene. He went to the mortuary a little after 7am and saw Chapman's body on the ambulance, seemingly undisturbed. He examined Chapman's clothing but did not stay long, leaving PC Barnes 376H in charge. He was later asked by the press to comment on a report that blood marks had been found on a wall in the yard of 25 Hanbury Street, which also culminated in a trail of blood leading to the back door. A bloodstained piece of crumpled paper was also alleged to have been found. Chandler had not heard of this report and nearly laughed when he heard it - apparently, no such evidence had been found and the stains on the wall were merely discoloration caused by urine. Joseph Chandler was demoted to Sergeant in 1892 as a consequence of being drunk on duty. He retired from service in 1898. In 1901 he was living at Jenner Road, Hackney and was employed as a Watcher for HM Customs. He died in 1923 in Hammersmith.

MARY CHAPPELL, friend of Mrs. Fiddymont who saw a suspicious looking man with blood on his hand in the Prince Albert on the morning of 8th September 1888. After the man left the pub, Chappell followed him and on Brushfield Street she pointed him out to passer-by Joseph Taylor.

ELIZA COOPER, Witness at Annie Chapman's inquest.

Resident of Crossingham's Lodging House for five months and may well have been a prostitute. Had a quarrel with Annie Chapman over a piece of soap a week or so before her death. Cooper's possibly inaccurate version of events is as follows: Witness knew the deceased, and had a quarrel with her on the Tuesday before she was murdered. On the previous Saturday deceased came in and asked the people there to give her a piece of soap. She was told to ask "Liza." Deceased then came to witness, who opened the locker and gave her a piece of soap. Deceased then handed the soap to Stanley, who went and washed himself. Deceased also went out, and when she came back witness asked her for the soap, which, however, she did not return, but said "I will see you by and by." Stanley gave deceased 2s., and she paid for the bed for two nights. Witness saw no more of deceased that night. Witness was treated by Stanley. On the following Wednesday witness met deceased in the kitchen and asked her to return the piece of soap. Deceased threw a halfpenny on the table and said "Go and get a halfpennyworth of soap." They then began to quarrel, and afterwards went to the Ringers public-house, where the quarrel was continued. Deceased slapped her face and said "Think yourself lucky I did not do more." Witness believed she then struck deceased in the left eye and then on the chest. She could afterwards see that the blow had marked deceased's face. That was the last time she saw deceased alive.

JOHN DAVIS, Witness at Annie Chapman's inquest. Born 1832 in Spitalfields. Married to Mary Ann b.1838 with four children; Mary (b.1856), James (b.1865), Benjamin (b.1868) and David (b.1870). In 1871 the family were living at 27 Grey Eagle Street and John was described as a coal dealer.

Davis was described as an elderly carman (although he was only 56), living in the third-floor front room of 29 Hanbury Street. He had been living there with his wife and three sons for approximately two weeks prior to the murder. On Friday, September 7th 1888, he had gone to bed at approximately 8.00pm; his sons came in at different times thereafter, the last one at about 10.45pm. Davis was awake between 3.00am and 5.00am on the morning of the 8th, before falling back to sleep for half an hour. He got up at 5.45am. He was certain of the time as he heard the clock of Christchurch chime. When he went downstairs to the backyard, he noticed that the front door of the house was wide open (not unusual) and that the back door leading to the yard was shut. When he entered the yard, Davis saw the body of Annie Chapman. He did not go any further into the yard, but ran out into the street where he saw two men whose names he did not know (actually James Green and James Kent) and after telling them of his discovery, they went to see the body for themselves. Davis left the house with them and went to Commercial Street Police Station to report what he had seen. He did not alert any other residents of No.29 to the discovery and though he returned to Hanbury Street, he did not re-enter the house until the afternoon. Davis did not know the deceased and heard nothing suspicious during the night. The Davis family were still living at No.29 in 1891

TIMOTHY DONOVAN, Witness at Annie Chapman's inquest. Deputy of Crossingham's Lodging House, 35 Dorset Street, Spitalfields. At Chapman's inquest, Donovan stated that he had seen the body in the mortuary and identified it as being that of a woman who had been staying at the lodging house for about four months. At about 7.00pm on 7th September 1888, she had asked him if she could use the kitchen and when he asked where she'd been, she replied "the infirmary". When she left the house at around 1.45am the following morning, she asked him to keep her regular bed. He chastised her, saying that she could find money for drink but not for her bed. She had obviously been drinking, but in Donovan's eyes seemed to be able to walk straight enough. He did not see which way she turned when she left and did not see her with anyone that night. Donovan stated that he had never had any trouble with Chapman and that she was always very friendly with the other lodgers. Despite this claim, he noticed her black-eye received in a fight with Eliza Cooper on 30th August to which Chapman said "Tim, this is lovely, aren’t it". He was also able to identify the handkerchief that Chapman had been wearing round her neck - he said she'd bought it off another lodger a week or two before her death and had been wearing it on the morning of her murder.