by Covell, Mike
The Weekly Herald, featured the following, dated September 14th 1888,
ANOTHER LONDON TRAGEDY. SHOCKING MUTILATION OF A WOMAN. Another horrible murder in the East of London has been added to the swelling list of brutal outrages which have been perpetrated within the last few weeks, and all of which are buried in profound mystery. In each case the victim has been a woman of the class known as `unfortunates,' and the circumstances of each murder must have been of the most ferocious nature. The victim in this case was discovered at a quarter to four o'clock on Saturday, lying in a back yard, at the foot of the passage leading into the lodging house, No. 29, Hanbury Street, formerly Old Brown's Lane, Spitalfields. The house is occupied by a Mrs Emilia Richardson, who lets it out to various lodgers; and it seems that the door which admits into this passage, at the foot of which lies the yard where the body was found, was always open for the convenience of the lodgers. A Mr. and Mrs. Davis occupy the upper storey (the house consisting of three stories), and as Mr. Davis was going down to work, at the time mentioned, he found a woman lying on her back, close up to the flight of steps leading into the yard. Her throat was cut open in a fearful manner–so deep, in fact, that the murderer, evidently thinking that he had severed the head from the body, tied a handkerchief round it so as to keep it on. It was also found that her body had been completely ripped open, and her bowels, heart, and other entrails were lying at her side. The fiendish work was completed by the murderer tying part of the entrails round the poor victim's neck and head. The place on which she was lying was found covered with clots of thick blood. The supposition was that the poor woman was murdered outside and carried into this yard by those who knew the place well. This is upheld by the fact that spots of blood were lying thick in the narrow passage leading from the street into the yard and the blood marks around where the body was found must have been caused by its being deposited there, there being no signs of any struggle having taken place in the vicinity. Davis (the lodger who found the body) immediately communicated with the police at Commercial Street Station, and Inspector Chandler and several constables arrived on the scene in a short time, when they found the woman in the condition described. Even at this early hour the news spread quickly, and great excitement prevailed among the occupants of the adjoining houses. An excited crowd gathered in front of Mrs. Richardson's house and also around the mortuary in Old Mortuary Street, where the body was quickly removed. As the corpse lay in the rough coffin in which it had been placed in the mortuary, the same coffin in which the unfortunate Mrs. Nicholls was put, it presented an appearance which could not but evoke pity for the victim and indignation at the brutal murder to an extreme degree. The body is that of a woman about 45 years of age. The height is five feet exactly. The complexion is fair, with wavy, dark brown hair. The eyes are blue, and two teeth have been knocked out in the lower jaw. The nose is rather large and prominent. The third finger of the left hand bore signs of rings having been wrenched off it, and the hands and arms were considerably bruised. Emilia Richardson, the woman who rents the house, stated in an interview with a reporter that the murder was beyond all description in its horrible details. Deceased had laced-up boots and stripped (sic) stockings. She had on two cotton petticoats, and was otherwise respectably dressed. Nothing was found in her pockets but a handkerchief and two small combs. The excitement in the vicinity is intense, and innumerable rumours are flying about. One report has it that a leather apron and a long knife have been found near the place where the body was, belonging, it is said, to a man whose name is unknown, but who is surnamed “Leather Apron,” and evidently known in the district. A further report states that another woman was nearly murdered early in the morning, and was taken to the hospital in a dying condition. Several persons who were lodging in the house and who were found in the vicinity when the body was found were taken to the Commercial Street Station, and were closely examined, especially the women who were last with deceased. The police authorities are extremely reticent, owing to the fact that any statement might get out which would help the murderer to elude detection. There can be little doubt now that this latest murder is one of the series of fiendish atrocities on women which have been going on within the past few months, this making the fourth case in this short time in the same district. It is thought that in this case the victim must have been murdered outside or in a neighbouring house, and carried into this dark yard, where the murderer evidently thought the body was safe from discovery for some time. There is little evidence to show that the murder was committed on the premises where the body was found, as the marks of blood were all found in one place–viz., where the police discovered the body. The only other marks are those found in the passage close to the flight of steps, and these may have been caused in removing the body to the mortuary. The police, however, in this case have more facts and evidence to go on, and they are sanguine that the murderer will soon be found. Looking at the corpse, no one could think otherwise than that the murder had been committed by a maniac or wretch of the lowest type of humanity: indeed, we should have to go to the wilds of Hungary or search the records of French lower peasant life before a more sickening and revolting tragedy could be told. The woman was known among her companions as, Dark Annie, and gave her name as Emily Annie Shifsey, but it is not yet known whether this was her correct name. She was an unfortunate and had been recently living at a common lodging-house at Dorset Street, which is near the scene of the night's atrocious crime. Deceased formerly lived with a sieve maker in the East End of London as his wife. The advisability of employing bloodhounds to trace the perpetrator of the crime has been eagerly discussed by the inhabitants of the district. It is considered, however by experts that the time has gone by for such an experiment, and it is pointed out also that in the case of the Blackburn murderer, who was discovered by such means, the circumstances were different, and that the present case does not admit of that. The leather apron found in the yard was examined by the police, and it is believed that it has no connection with the murder. No knife was found near the spot, but a piece of old iron, sharpened at both ends, was observed lying close to the body. This weapon could not, however, have been the instrument with which the wounds were inflicted. As the body lies in the mortuary it presents a far more shocking appearance than any that have gone before it. The police have ascertained that the last time that woman was seen alive was at a quarter to two when she left her lodgings to go out and earn her “doss,” as she put it, meaning her bed. Every lodging-house within half a mile of the scene of the murder was visited, and the names of those who entered after two o'clock taken. Although two or three men have been apprehended on suspicion, they have given satisfactory accounts of their movements, and have been liberated. Inspector Chandler, at Commercial Road Police Station, received information after midnight on Sunday that a person was detained at Deptford on suspicion. He proved to be a young man apprehended in the Old Kent Road, and his answers to interrogations being considered satisfactory, he was shortly afterwards released. About nine o'clock on Monday morning a detective arrested a man known as Leather Apron, who was wanted in connexion with the Whitechapel murder at 22 Mulberry Street, Commercial Street. The real name of the man arrested is John Piser, but his friends deny that he has ever been known under the nickname of Leather Apron. When the detective called at the house the door was opened by prisoner himself. “Just the man I want,” said the detective, who charged him on suspicion of being connected with the murder of the woman Siffey. The detective searched the house, and took away some finishing tools which prisoner was in the habit of using in his work. By trade he is a boot-finisher, and for some time has been living at Mulberry Street with his stepmother, Mrs Piser, and a married brother, who works at cabinetmaking. In answer to the inspector at the police station, the prisoner stated that he was going down Brick Lane, Spitalfields, at 4:30 on Saturday morning, when a woman fell down in a fit. He stooped to pick her up, whereupon she bit him through the hand. Two policemen then came up, and he ran away.
Dr. Whitcombe, the police surgeon, having examined the man's clothing, discovered blood spots on two shirts the man was carrying in a bundle. He was also of the opinion that blood had been wiped off his boots. The woman was in the street, not at the back of a lodging house. Prisoner added that on Friday he was walking about Whitechapel all night.
The St. James Gazette, a newspaper based in London, England, featured the following, dated September 14th 1888,
THE SPITALFIELDS MURDER. THE INQUEST. The resumed inquiry into the death of Annie Chapman was held at the Working Lads' Institute yesterday, by Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, the coroner for the district. Inspectors Helson, Chandler and Abberline again appeared for the police authorities. Inspector Joseph Chandler deposed that he was called by some men on Saturday morning and told that another woman had been murdered, in Hanbury street. He at once proceeded there and saw the deceased lying at the bottom of the steps leading to the yard. He sent for the divisional surgeon, Dr.Phillips, and for the ambulance. The body was then removed to the mortuary, where the witness searched it. He also searched the yard and there found two pocket combs and a piece of muslin. A piece of an envelope that contained two pills was also discovered. On the back there was a seal with the words “Sussex Regiment” on it in embossed letters. On the reverse side was the letter “M” in writing. It appeared to be a man's handwriting. The postmark was “London, Aug. 23, 1888.” All these articles were found near where the woman's feet had been. In the yard was also found a leather apron, which had since been identified by Mrs. Richardson as belonging to her son. The paling which surrounds the yard was very weak and hardly strong enough to bear any one climbing over it. He had examined it, but none of it was then broken. Near the head of the body there were marks of blood on the wall. There was not the slightest trace of blood anywhere outside the yard. At the mortuary he examined the clothing worn by the deceased, and found blood stains on the neck of the jacket and also on the left arm. The jacket was buttoned. A loose picket that was fastened under the skirt was empty, and torn down the front and at the side. By the jury: The back yard door at 29, Hanbury street, opens outward to the left, and if young John Richardson had only stood on the top step he might not have seen the body, as the door would interfere with his view. Questioned further, the witness said that the police had been unable to find the man Stanley, who used to stay with the deceased on Saturday nights. The foreman asked why the Government did not offer a reward for the apprehension of the guilty party. The coroner said he believed that the money was spent in a different way, but still with the same object in view. Dr. George Bagster Phillips, of 2, Spital square, divisional surgeon of police, said that on Saturday, the 8th of September, he was called by the police at 6.20 a.m. to 29, Hanbury street. He arrived there within ten minutes, and found the dead body of a female in the possession of the police, lying in the back yard. The face was swollen and turned on the right side. The body was mutilated in a shocking manner. There was a large quantity of blood by the left shoulder. Ho found in the yard, which he examined, a piece of muslin and two combs which had evidently been carefully arranged and placed against the side of the yard. He noticed that the throat was severed, and that the incision through the skin was jagged and reached right round the neck. On the back wall of the house, between the steps and the paling, about eighteen inches from the ground, were several patches of blood, and on the wooden paling dividing the two yards were smears of blood corresponding to where the deceased's head lay. Soon after two o'clock on the same day he went to make a post mortem examination of the body. He was surprised to find that the body had been stripped and was lying on the table. It was with great difficulty that he made the examination. The body had evidently been attended to after its removal to the mortuary - probably partially washed. He found two distinct bruises, each the size of a man's thumb, on the chest. There was a bruise on the left eyelid. There was an abrasion on the upper joint of the ring finger, and distinct marking of a ring or rings. The head being opened showed that the membranes of the brain were full of blood. The throat had been cut as before described, and the skin had been entirely severed all the way round to the spine. The incisions had been made from the left side of the neck and carried entirely round. It also seemed as if an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck. There were many other frightful injuries; but he was of opinion that they were subsequent to the death of the woman, which resulted from the flow of blood from the neck. The injuries must have been inflicted with a long sharp knife with a thin blade. A bayonet could not have caused the injuries. A slaughterman's knife, well ground down, would inflict similar injuries. The knives used in the leather trade would not be long enough. There was indication of anatomical knowledge; but it appeared as if the work had been done in great haste. He was of opinion that when he saw the body the woman had been dead two hours, probably more. There was no evidence about the body of any struggle having taken place. The witness said he was positive that the deceased entered the yard alive. He made a thorough search of the passage, but failed to find the slightest trace of blood. By the coroner: He examined the apron found in the yard. There was no trace of blood on it. He was convinced that the woman had not taken any strong alcohol for some hours before her death. He thought that whoever cut the deceased's throat took hold of her by the chin and then commenced the incision from left to right. The tongue protruding showed signs of suffocation, and round the throat of the deceased he found a cloth (produced). It was soaked in blood which flowed from the neck. Mary Elizabeth Simmons, a nurse at the Whitechapel Infirmary, described the clothes worn by the deceased, which she assisted to take off. No portion of the body was thrown away with the clothes as far as she knew. The inquiry was adjourned until Wednesday next. THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS. A MYSTERIOUS PROWLER. The Press Association says: A statement was made last night to a reporter by a woman named Lloyd, living in Heath street, Commercial road, which may possibly prove of some importance. While standing outside a neighbour's door about half past ten on Monday night she heard her daughter, who was sitting in the door step, scream, and on looking round saw a man walk hurriedly away. The daughter states that the man peered into her face, and that she saw a large knife at his side. A lady living opposite stated that a similar incident took place outside her house. The man was short of stature, with a sandy beard, and wore a cloth cap. The woman drew the attention of some men who were passing to the strange man, and they pursued him some distance until he turned up a bye street, and, after assuming a threatening attitude, suddenly disappeared.
The Pall Mall Gazette, a London newspaper published on September 14th 1888, featured the following,
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER. No fresh facts of the slightest importance have transpired in connection with the Whitechapel murder beyond the evidence given at the inquest. There have been no further arrests. The police have satisfied themselves that the man Pigott could have had nothing to do with the murders. His movements have been fully accounted for, and he is no longer under surveillance. The police to-day are making inquiries as to the whereabouts of the pensioner who was said to have kept company with the murdered woman, Chapman. All traces of him have been lost since Saturday last, which does not speak well for the police. Tim Donovan, who gave evidence at the inquest which connected this man with the deceased, says he is known by the name of “Ted Stanley,” but he does not know his occupation; while the watchman at the lodging-house in Dorset-street, which place Annie Chapman left on Saturday morning last and was not afterwards seen alive, asserts that the pensioner went to the lodging-house on Saturday as usual, and on being informed that Chapman had been murdered nearly fainted. The police think that he is keeping out of the way more from the shame of having been associated with the deceased than from any fear that he has of being connected with the murder. It is more than probable also, they say, that he may be one of the regular comers from the country to the Spitalfields Market, and will put in his usual appearance on Saturday. Dr. Phillips's positive opinion that the woman had been
dead quite two hours when he first saw the body at half-past six considerably adds to the prevailing confusion. A statement was made last night by a young person named Lloyd, living in Heath-street, Commercial-road, E., to the following effect: - While standing outside a neighbour's door, at about 10.30, on Monday night, she heard her daughter who was sitting on the doorstep, scream, and on looking round saw a man walk hurriedly away. The daughter states that the man peered into her face, and she perceived a large knife at his side. (This, it must be admitted, does not appear very probable.) A lady living opposite stated that a similar incident took place outside her house. The man was short of stature, with a sandy beard, and wore a cloth cap. The woman drew the attention of some men who were passing to the strange man, and they pursued him some distance, until he turned up a by-street, and, after assuming a threatening attitude, he suddenly disappeared.
The Morning Advertiser, a London based newspaper, featured the following, dated September 14th 1888,
Dr. Phillips and other witnesses were examined yesterday at the adjourned inquiry into the murder of Annie Chapman, who was found horribly mutilated at the rear of 29, Hanbury-street, Whitechapel, and some severe comments were made as to the entire absence of proper mortuary accommodation in the district. The inquiry was again adjourned. No further arrests have been made in connexion with the murder. Yesterday a Mrs. Potter made an application to Mr. d'Eyncourt, at the Westminster Police Court, regarding the disappearance of her daughter, a girl of weak intellect. She stated that she had seen the divisional police surgeon and described her daughter's appearance to him, and that he said the particulars given to him would in every way correspond with the arm recently found in the Thames. The statement that a woman's body had been found tied in a sack at the Sloane-square station of the District Railway has been contradicted. THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER. The inquiry, adjourned from the previous day, into the circumstances attending the death of Annie Chapman, aged 47, who was murdered under exceedingly revolting circumstances at the rear of No. 29, Hanbury-street, was resumed yesterday in the Alexandra Hall, Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel-road, before Mr. Wynne Baxter, one of the coroners for Middlesex. Inspector Chandler, H divison, said - On Saturday morning about ten minutes past six I was on duty in Commercial-street, at the corner of Hanbury-street. I saw several men running up the street. They beckoned to me, and one of them said, “Another woman has been murdered.” I went with the man to 29, Hanbury-street. On going through the passage into the yard I saw body of the deceased woman lying on the ground. She was on her back, her head being towards, but about two feet from, the back wall of the house. Her head would be only about six or nine inches from the steps leading from the passage to the yard. The face was towards the right side, and the left hand was lying on the right breast. The left arm was by the side. Her legs were exposed as far as the knees. A portion of the intestines still connected with the body were lying over the left shoulder. There were pieces of skin on the ground near the head, just over the left shoulder, lying in a pool of blood. The body was lying parallel with the fencing. A number of persons were in the passage, but no one was in the yard. I remained in the yard and sent for the divisional surgeon, also to the station for further assistance. When the constables arrived all the people were removed from the passage, and a piece of canvas was thrown over the body. The Coroner: Did you examine the clothes of the deceased? - After the body had been removed there were found in the yard a piece of muslin, a pocket comb, and a small tooth comb in a leather case. They were lying near where the feet of the deceased had been. A piece of paper - a portion of an envelope - was found near the spot where the head had been, and this contained two pills. There was part of an address on the envelope, and the words, “Sussex Regiment” embossed upon it in blue. Inquiries were being made about this. On the reverse side was a part of a letter written in a man's handwriting, I should think. There was a postmark on the envelope indicating that it had been posted in London. Did you find anything else in the yard? - Yes, a leather apron, which was saturated with wet. It was lying about two feet from the water-tap. I showed the apron to the doctor. I also found an empty nailbox, such as would be used by a packing-case maker, and a small piece of flat steel. Mrs. Richardson had identified those articles. Was the yard paved? - Only a portion was roughly paved with stones, some being flat stones and others being round. Was there any appearance of a struggle? - No, I think not. As to the fencing, was it strong or temporary? - It was slight. Would it support the weight of a man getting over it?- It might. None of the palings were broken, but those in the adjoining yard had been since; only the palings near which the body lay was stained with blood. Have any other marks been found? - Not on the palings, but on the wall of No. 25 marks have been found, which may have been seen by Dr. Phillips. I could not discover any bloodstains outside the yard. Any those near were in the immediate neighbourhood of the body? - Yes. There were splashes of blood on the wall near where the head of the deceased had lain. The largest spot was about the size of a sixpence. A plan of the yard had been prepared. Did you search the body? - I searched the clothes. Deceased was wearing a long black jacket reaching to the knees. There were bloodstains on the neck of the jacket, both inside and out, and also on the arms. The jacket was buttoned in front, and it did not show that there had been any struggle. There were no pockets in any of the clothing, but a large pocket was found tied round the waist underneath the skirt. It was torn in front, also at the side, and was empty. Deceased was wearing a black skirt, and there was blood on the outside at the back where she had lain. The two petticoats of the deceased were blood-stained, and likewise the two bodices she was wearing. Deceased's chemise was covered with blood, more or less all over. She was not wearing stays. There were no blood marks on the stockings or shoes, which were very old. Did you see young Richardson? - I did later on, about seven o'clock. He was then in the passage. He told me he was in the passage about a quarter to five o'clock. Did he tell you what he was there for? - Yes; he said he came to look if all was right. He told me that he was sure the body was not in the yard about five o'clock. By the Jury. - The door opened into the yard and would hide the body from sight unless a person stood on the top of the steps or went into the yard. Richardson only told me that he went to the top of the steps and looked down into the cellar. He said nothing about having sat on the top step. A Juror. - Something has been said about an envelope with the name of a regiment or some barracks. Are you going to produce the pensioner, Stanley? Inspector Chandler. - We have not been able to find him yet. The Juror.- Surely he is a very important witness. He was with the woman Saturday after Saturday - week after week, and he ought to be produced. Inspector Chandler. - No one is able to give us any information whatever about him or where he comes from. The parties where the woman lived have been requested to communicate with the police if he goes there. The Coroner. - I think the man, if he knows his duty, ought to come forward. Police-sergeant Badham stated that on Saturday morning last he conveyed the body of the deceased to the Whitechapel mortuary, where it was identified by two females from 35, Dorset-street, where deceased lived. Robert Mann, who had charge of the building where the body was taken, gave evidence. The Coroner (in reply to an observation) said - The fact is the police had no right whatever to take the body to this place. It is not a mortuary at all, but simply a shed belonging to the workhouse officials. A Juror.- I think it is a very bad state of things that there is no mortuary. The Coroner.- It is not at all a proper condition of things. The Juror. _ Whitechapel extends over a very wide area, and there ought to be a mortuary. The Coroner.- Quite so. The East-end, where a mortuary is more required than anywhere, is without one. It often happens that the bodies washed up from the river have to be put in boxes owing to the absence of proper accommodation, and I have had instances in which bodies found at Wapping have been brought all the way to this workhouse shed. A workhouse man is not a proper person to take charge of bodies in this way. The shed is simply for the use of the workhouse people.
A Juror.- Funds are being collected locally for the purpose of offering a reward for discovering the murderer, and Mr. S. Montagu, M.P., has offered a reward of 100£; but we think that these efforts would be more likely to be successful if a substantial reward were offered by the Government. The Coroner.- I do not speak from official knowledge, but I have been told that the Government have determined not to give any reward in these cases. I do not mean in this case particularly, but in murder cases generally - not from any economical motive, but because they think it is a bad system. Witness said the handkerchief produced was picked up in a corner of the shed, and given by him to the doctor. Timothy Donovan, deputy at 35, Dorset-street, recalled, identified the pocket handkerchief as one which the deceased, who had purchased it of a fellow lodger, usually wore round her neck. She had it on when she left the lodging house on the morning of the murder. By a Juror.- He should recognise the pensioner if he saw him, but he did not know him. He knew “Harry the Hawker.” The pensioner came as usual on the Saturday afternoon after the murder, and when he was told what had occurred he went away - he would not stop. Witness sent for the police, but he had gone before they arrived. Mr. George Baxter Phillips, police divisional surgeon, sworn, said - I was called to see the deceased at about ten minutes past six o'clock on the morning in question, and saw the body within ten minutes of being called. Deceased was lying on her back on the left-hand side of the yard steps leading from the passage to 29, Hanbury-street. The legs were drawn up, and the knees were turned outwards. The face was swollen, and the tongue, which was evidently much swollen, protruded, but not beyond the lips. The small intestines and a flap of the wall of the stomach, also the cover of the intestines, were lying on the right side of the body on the ground above the right shoulder, and were attached to the remainder of the intestines in the body by a coil of intestine. Two flaps of the wall of the stomach were lying in a large quantity of blood above the left shoulder. I searched the yard, and found a small piece of coarse muslin and the other articles mentioned by Inspector Chandler. The muslin and combs had apparently been arranged, or placed in order, where I found them. The left side of the body was cold, excepting a remaining heat under the intestines in the body. The stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but was commencing. I noticed that the throat was severed deeply, and that the incision through the skin was jagged. There were about half a dozen small patches of blood on the wall at the back of the head, about eighteen inches from the ground, and on the palings, about fourteen inches from the ground, near the head, were smears of blood. After receiving instructions from the coroner, I proceeded to the labour-yard of the workhouse, and was surprised to find that the body had been stripped, and was lying ready for examination. It was with very great difficulty that I conducted the examination, and I must raise my protest against members of my profession being called upon to perform such duties under such inadequate circumstances. The Coroner.- The building is not at all suitable. It is simply a shed. Dr. Phillips.- It is not at all fit for post-mortem examinations. There is no adequate convenience, and at certain seasons of the year it is dangerous to the operator to perform his duties there. The Coroner.- As a matter of fact there is no police mortuary between the city of London and Bow. A Juor.- The jury can quite endorse the doctor's statement of the place. Examination continued.- The body had evidently been attended to since its removal to the shed, and had probably been washed. I noticed a bruise over the right temple and two distince bruises, each the size of a man's thumb, on the forepart of the chest. The fingernails and lips were tinged. There was an abrasion over the first joint of the ring finger, with distinct markings of a ring or rings, probably the latter. The incisions in the skin around the neck indicated that they had been made from the left side. There were indications of two distinct cuts half an inch apart on the left side of the neck, parallel with the spine, and it appeared that an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck. There were other mutilations of the body, but I am of opinion that they were committed subsequent to the death of the woman, occasioned as it was by the wounds in the neck, and subsequent to the escape of the blood from the throat. Possibly the details, however, would be painful to the jury and the public, and unless desired I do not propose to give them. The Coroner.- They may be important as showing the character of the person committing the murder, but you have a record of them, and I will not call for it at present. Probably it will be better if you give the result of your examination as to the cause of death. Witness.- Death arose from syncope, occasioned by the loss of blood, caused by the severance of the throat. Were the wounds in the abdomen caused by the same instrument as that by which the wound in the throat was caused? - Most probably. They must have been made with a thin, narrow blade at least six or eight inches in length, possibly longer. Could the wounds have been inflicted by any instrument used by a military man, such as a sword or sword bayonet? - No, I think. Or any instrument such as a medical man would use for post-mortem purposes? - No ordinary case would contain such an instrument. Would a slaughterman use such a knife? - I think so, especially if the knife was well ground down. Can you suggest any instrument used by a shoemaker or in the shoe trade? - Only the knife used by a splitter. Was any anatomical knowledge displayed by the murderer? - I think there were indications of it, and I believe that the indications were only prevented from being more marked in consequence of the haste in which the deed was committed. Was the whole of the body there? - No; portions had been taken from the abdomen, and I think that the mode in which the walls of the stomach had been abstracted showed some anatomical knowledge. Might not some portions of the body have been lost in transit? - No; they had been excised from the body without a doubt. How long do you suppose deceased had been dead before you saw the body? - At least two hours, probably more, but the morning was fairly cold, and the body would have become cold sooner in consequence. Was there evidence of any struggle? - No; not about the body of the woman, but I am positive that a struggle took place in the yard. There were no traces of blood in the passage in the street leading to it, as there must have been had the wounds been inflicted prior to the deceased going to the yard. There was no mark of blood on the apron, which, from its appearance, did not seem to have been unfolded recently. About the marks on the wall of No. 25, Hanbury-street? - They look like blood marks, but I am not able to trace any signs of blood. There was considerable disease of the lungs and of the membranes of the brain of the deceased, and although the body was fat there were indications that it had been badly fed. I am quite convinced that deceased had taken no alcoholic drink for some considerable time before her death. Could the injuries have been self-inflicted? - Certainly not the recent injuries which were the immediate cause of death. The marks on the temple and face were recent, but those on the chest were of long standing. Can you form any opinion as to how the injuries were inflicted? - I am of opinion that the person who cut the deceased's throat caught hold of her by the chin, and then commenced cutting from left to right. But could that have been done without the deceased having the opportunity of shouting? - I think so. A Juror. - The swelling of the face and tongue would indicate that the deceased was partially suffocated before the murder was committed? - That is a supposition you are quite at liberty to draw as well as myself. Examination continued. - The handkerchief produced was tied loosely round the deceased's neck. It did not seem to have been disturbed when the throat was cut, and I do not think it was placed round the neck after the murder was committed. Mary Elizabeth Simons, nurse at the Whitechapel Infirmary, stated that she, with the head nurse, stripped the body of the deceased at the workhouse. They did it by direction of Inspector Chandler, and they also washed the stains of blood from the body. The handkerchief they left round the neck of the deceased. They noticed no cuts in the clothing. Inspector Chandler denied giving the instructions mentioned by the nurse. The Coroner. - No blame can be case upon the workhouse authorities, because they are doing in the best way they can the work which should be done by the vestry. In re
ply to a question, the coroner's office said he believed that in consequence of the clothing having been cut or torn from the body of one of the woman recently murdered, instructions had been given that the nurses only should strip bodies taken to the mortuary. The inquiry was then adjourned until Wednesday afternoon next. It may be mentioned that the public excitement caused in Whitechapel by the murder seems to have entirely subsided. But very few person other than those compelled to attend were present in the room where the inquiry took place, and outside, judging from the entire absence of idlers, the proceedings appeared to evoke no interest whatever.
