Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files

by Marriott, Trevor

  A further witness was Inspector Chandler from H Division Metropolitan Police the relevant part of his testimony is:

  “On Saturday morning, at ten minutes past six, I was on duty in Commercial-street. At the corner of Hanbury-street I saw several men running. I beckoned to them. One of them said, "Another woman has been murdered." I at once went with him to 29, Hanbury-street, and through the passage into the yard. There was no one in the yard. I saw the body of a woman lying on the ground on her back. Her head was towards the back wall of the house, nearly two feet from the wall, at the bottom of the steps, but six or nine inches away from them. The face was turned to the right side, and the left arm was resting on the left breast. The right hand was lying down the right side. Deceased's legs were drawn up, and the clothing was above the knees. A portion of the intestines, still connected with the body, were lying above the right shoulder, with some pieces of skin. There were also some pieces of skin on the left shoulder. The body was lying parallel with the fencing dividing the two yards. I remained there and sent for the divisional surgeon, Mr. Phillips, and to the police station for the ambulance and for further assistance. When the constables arrived I cleared the passage of people, and saw that no one touched the body until the doctor arrived. I obtained some sacking to cover it before the arrival of the surgeon, who came at about half-past six o'clock, and he, having examined the body, and directed that it should be removed to the mortuary.”

  Amongst other witnesses who were called was Sergeant Badham, H Division. He 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?

  Badham: Yes.

  Coroner: Where did you deposit the body?

  Badham: 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?

  Badham: I did not see the women touch the clothing nor the body. I did not see Sergeant Thicke touch the body.

  Inspector Chandler, recalled:

  “I reached the mortuary a few minutes after seven. The body did not appear to have been disturbed. He did not stay until the doctor arrived. Police-constable 376 H was left in charge, with the mortuary keeper. Robert Mann, the mortuary keeper and an inmate of the Whitechapel Union Workhouse, said he received the body at seven o'clock on Saturday morning. He remained at the mortuary until Dr. Phillips came. The door of the mortuary was locked except when two nurses from an infirmary came and undressed the body. No one else touched the corpse. He gave the key into the hands of the police.

  Set out below is the medical evidence given by Dr. George Bagster Phillips the police surgeon, together with questions put to him during his testimony.

  He first describes the body of Annie Chapman as he saw it at 6.30am in the backyard of the house at 29, Hanbury Street:

  "The left arm was placed across the left breast. The legs were drawn up, the feet resting on the ground, and the knees turned outwards. The face was swollen and turned on the right side. The tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The tongue was evidently much swollen. The front teeth were perfect as far as the first molar, top and bottom and very fine teeth they were. The body was terribly mutilated... the stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but was evidently commencing. He noticed that the throat was dissevered deeply; that the incision through the skin was jagged and reached right round the neck... On the wooden paling between the yard in question and the next, smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased lay, were to be seen. These were about 14 inches from the ground, and immediately above the part where the blood from the neck lay.

  He should say that the instrument used at the throat and abdomen was the same. It must have been a very sharp knife with a thin narrow blade, and must have been at least 6 in. to 8 in. in length, probably longer. He should say that the injuries could not have been inflicted by a bayonet or a sword bayonet. They could have been done by such an instrument as a medical man used for post-mortem purposes, but the ordinary surgical cases might not contain such an instrument. Those used by the slaughtermen, well ground down, might have caused them. He thought the knives used by those in the leather trade would not be long enough in the blade. There were indications of anatomical knowledge... he should say that the deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more, when he first saw her; but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood. There was no evidence... of a struggle having taken place. He was positive the deceased entered the yard alive... A handkerchief was round the throat of the deceased when he saw it early in the morning. He should say it was not tied on after the throat was cut."

  He then gives further details following his post-mortem examination:

  “Having received instructions soon after two o’clock on Saturday afternoon, I went to the labour yard of the Whitechapel Union for the purpose of further examining the body and making the usual post-mortem investigation. I was surprised to find that the body had been stripped and was lying ready on the table. It was under great disadvantage I made my examination. As on many occasions I have met with the same difficulty, I now raise my protest, as I have before, that members of my profession should be called upon to perform their duties under these inadequate circumstances…

  “The body had been attended to since its removal to the mortuary, and probably partially washed. I noticed a bruise over the right temple. There was a bruise under the clavicle, and there were two distinct bruises, each the size of a man’s thumb, on the fore part of the chest. The stiffness of the limbs was then well marked. The fingernails were turgid. There was an old scar of long-standing on the left of the frontal bone. On the left side the stiffness was more noticeable, and especially in the fingers, which were partly closed. There was an abrasion over the bend of the first joint of the ring finger, and there were distinct markings of a ring or rings – probably the latter. There were small sores on the fingers. The head being opened showed that the membranes of the brain were opaque and the veins loaded with blood of a dark character. There was a large quantity of fluid between the membranes and the substance of the brain. The brain substance was unusually firm, and its cavities also contained a large amount of fluid. The throat had been severed. The incisions of the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side of the neck on a line with the angle of the jaw, carried entirely round and again in front of the neck, and ending at a point about midway between the jaw and the sternum or breast bone on the right hand. There were two distinct clean cuts on the body of the vertebrae on the left side of the spine. They were parallel to each other, and separated by about half an inch. The muscular structures between the side processes of bone of the vertebrae had an appearance as if an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck. There are various other mutilations of the body, but I am of the opinion that they occurred subsequently to the death of the woman and to the large escape of blood from the neck. [Phillips paused] I am entirely in your hands, sir, but is it necessary that I should describe the further mutilations? From what I have said I can state the cause of death.”

  Coroner: The object of the inquiry is not only to ascertain the cause of death, but the means by which it occurred. Any mutilation, which took place, afterwards may suggest the character of the man who did it. Possibly you can give us the conclusions to which you have come respecting the instrument used.

  Dr. Phillips: You don’t wish for details. I think if it were possible to escape the details it would be advisable. The cause of death is visible from injuries I have described.

  Coroner: You have kept a record of them?

  D
r. Phillips: I have. From these appearances I am of the opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death, and that death arose from syncope, or failure of the heart’s action, in consequence of the loss of blood caused by the severance of the throat.

  Coroner: Was the instrument used at the throat the same as that used at the abdomen?

  Dr. Phillips: Very probably. It must have been a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, and at least six to eight inches in length, and perhaps longer.

  Coroner: Is it possible that any instrument used by a military man, such as a bayonet, would have done it?

  Dr. Phillips: No, it would not be a bayonet.

  Coroner: Would it have been such an instrument as a medical man uses for post-mortem examinations?

  Dr. Phillips: The ordinary post-mortem case perhaps does not contain such a weapon.

  Coroner: Would any instrument that slaughterers employ have caused the injuries?

  Dr. Phillips: Yes; well ground down.

  Coroner: Would the knife of a cobbler or of any person in the leather trades have done?

  Dr. Phillips: I think the knife used in those trades would not be long enough in the blade.

  Coroner: Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed?

  Dr. Phillips: I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that the anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste.

  Coroner: Was the whole of the body there?

  Dr. Phillips: No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.

  Coroner: Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract?

  Dr. Phillips: I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.

  Coroner: You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary?

  Dr. Phillips: I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.

  Coroner: How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her?

  Dr. Phillips: I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

  Coroner: Was there any evidence of any struggle?

  Dr. Phillips: No; not about the body of the woman.

  Coroner: In your opinion did she enter the yard alive?

  Dr. Phillips: I am positive of it. I made a thorough search of the passage, and I saw no trace of blood, which must have been visible had she been taken into the yard.

  Coroner: Were any of these injuries self-inflicted?

  Dr. Phillips: The injuries, which were the immediate cause of death, were not self-inflicted.

  Coroner: Was the bruising you mentioned recent?

  Dr. Phillips: The marks on the face were recent, especially about the chin and sides of the jaw. The bruise upon the temple and the bruises in front of the chest were of longer standing, probably of days. I am of opinion that the person who cut the deceased’s throat took hold of her by the chin, and then commenced the incision from left to right.

  Coroner: Could that be done so instantaneously that a person could not cry out?

  Dr. Phillips: By pressure on the throat no doubt it would be possible.

  Foreman of the jury: There would probably be suffocation.

  Coroner: The thickening of the tongue would be one of the signs of suffocation?

  Dr. Phillips: Yes. My impression is that she was partially strangled. (Witness added that the handkerchief produced was, when found amongst the clothing, saturated with blood. A similar article was round the throat of the deceased when he saw her early in the morning at Hanbury Street.)

  Coroner: It had not the appearance of having been tied on afterwards?

  Dr. Phillips: No. Sarah Simonds, a resident nurse at the Whitechapel Infirmary, stated that, in company of the senior nurse, she went to the mortuary on Saturday, and found the body of the deceased on the ambulance in the yard. It was afterwards taken into the shed, and placed on the table. She was directed by Inspector Chandler to undress it, and she placed the clothes in a corner. She left the handkerchief round the neck. She was sure of this. They washed stains of blood from the body. It seemed to have run down from the throat. She found the pocket tied round the waist. The strings were not torn. There were no tears or cuts in the clothes.

  Foreman of the jury: We are of opinion that the evidence the doctor on the last occasion wished to keep back should be heard. (Several Jurymen: Hear, hear.)

  Coroner: I have carefully considered the matter and have never before heard of any evidence requested being kept back…

  Dr. Phillips: I am of opinion that what I am about to describe took place after death, so that it could not affect the cause of death, which you are inquiring into.

  Coroner: That is only your opinion, and might be repudiated by other medical opinion.

  Dr. Phillips: Very well. I will give you the results of my post-mortem examination.

  Dr. Phillips then detailed the terrible wounds, which had been inflicted upon the woman, and described the parts of the body, which the perpetrator of the murder had carried away with him. He added: I am of opinion that the length of the weapon with which the incisions were inflicted was at least five to six inches in length, probably more and must have been very sharp. The manner in which they had been done indicated a certain amount of anatomical knowledge.

  Coroner: Can you give any idea how long it would take to perform the incisions found on the body?

  Dr. Phillips: I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour. The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body.

  Foreman of the jury: Is there anything to indicate that the crime in the case of the woman Nichols was perpetrated with the same object as this?

  Coroner: There is a difference in this respect, at all events, that the medical expert is of opinion that, in the case of Nichols, the mutilations were made first.

  Foreman of the jury: Was any photograph of the eyes of the deceased taken, in case they should retain any impression of the murderer?

  Dr. Phillips: I have no particular opinion upon that point myself. I was asked about it very early in the inquiry, and I gave my opinion that the operation would be useless, especially in this case. The use of a bloodhound was also suggested. It may be my ignorance, but the blood around was that of the murdered woman, and it would be more likely to be traced than the murderer. The police submitted these questions to me very early. I think within twenty-four hours of the murder of the woman.

  Coroner: Were the injuries to the face and neck such as might have produced insensibility?

  Dr. Phillips: Yes; they were consistent with partial suffocation.

  The main contentious issue with this murder is the removal of the uterus, which for many years experts have suggested was carried out by the killer at the scene. The doctor who went to the murder scene and made a cursory examination did not record any organs having been removed at that time. However, he only found the uterus had been removed when conducting the post-mortem some seven hours later and stated that the person who removed the organ must have had some anatomical knowledge and stated that it would have taken a skilled medical man like himself upwards of fifteen minutes and up to one hour to carry out such a removal at the murder location.

  The inquest testimony highlights a number of discrepancies. Dr. Phillips who was the last person to arrive at the murder scene states that the intestines had b
een taken out and placed over her shoulder. However James Kent one of the first persons who went to the murder scene states, “The entrails were protruding, and were lying across her left side.” It should be noted that it is not necessary to take out the intestines to remove a uterus. It is also a fact that the intestines are compacted within the body and once the abdominal wall is opened the intestines recoil outwards. So it is quite possible that during the abdominal mutilation process carried out by the killer the intestines did just that, giving the appearance of having been placed. Or equally during the frenzied attack on the abdomen the killer deliberately ripped them out.

  Another issue is with the body of the victim. It was taken by the police ambulance (handcart) to the Workhouse mortuary, which in those days was nothing more than a wooden shed. It was under the care of the mortuary keeper, Robert Mann until 2pm that same day, some seven hours later when Dr. Phillips arrived and carried out the post-mortem. Robert Mann as well as being the mortuary keeper was also an inmate of the Workhouse and he himself was in 2009 named as being a likely suspect for Jack the Ripper by another author.

  No one was supposed to touch or tamper with the body prior to the post-mortem being carried out. However, it is documented that other persons did have access to the body and touched and tampered with it for the purpose of stripping the body and cleaning it. The question is did anyone else, and if so for what purpose?

  As a professional investigator I already had some serious nagging doubts about one particular previously accepted fact surrounding this specific murder. On the face of it there is a killer who goes with a prostitute into a backyard of a house in the early hours of the morning while it is still dark. He then kills her, mutilates her body and supposedly disembowels her, removing her uterus with the fallopian tubes attached, with what was described as anatomical knowledge. It is a fact that surgeons and doctors require a great deal of light to locate organs and either operate on them or remove them.