by Covell, Mike
September 17th 1888
The Evening Standard, a London based newspaper, featured the following, dated September 17th 1888,
The police have been in communication with the pensioner Edward Stanley, who is known to have been frequently in the company of the murdered woman, Chapman. Stanley, who is a man of 47 years of age, attended at the Commercial street Police station, on Saturday and made a statement, which was taken down by Inspector Helson. His explanation of his proceedings is regarded as perfectly satisfactory, and as affording no possible grounds for associating him in any way with the recent outrage. In view of his relations with the deceased woman, Stanley felt considerable diffidence in coming forward, but after the expressions of opinion by the Coroner at the inquest on Thursday, he placed himself in direct communication with the police. It was by arrangement that he subsequently proceeded to Commercial street Police station. Stanley has given the police a full account of his whereabouts since he last saw the deceased woman, which was on the Sunday preceding the murder. Since then he has been following his usual employment, and has taken no steps to conceal his movements. The man is described as superior to the ordinary run of those who frequent the lodging houses of Spitalfields. He states that he has known Chapman for about two years, and he denies that she was of a quarrelsome disposition. So far as he is aware, there was no man with whom she was on bad terms, or who would have any reason for seeking her life.
The Daily News, a newspaper published in London, England, featured the following, dated September 17th 1888,
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER. The detective officers engaged in the case are more hopeful than they have been before. It is stated that they have some fresh information, which encourages them to hope that before the week is over they will be able to solve the mystery. Considerable excitement existed at Holloway on Saturday in consequence of it being known that the police had obtained some important information in reference to the lunatic arrested there on Thursday. He is said to be a master German pork butcher, and has been in the habit of carrying large, sharp knives. He has been absent from home frequently during the past 10 weeks, and it is therefore believed that he has been missing about the times of the murders. It is ascertained that he entirely changed his clothes after the murder. Very grave doubt now exists as to the exact time when the woman Chapman was murdered. Mrs. Durrell made a statement on Wednesday to the effect that at about half past five in the morning of the murder of Mrs. Chapman she saw a man and a woman conversing outside 29 Hanbury street, the scene of the murder, and that they disappeared very suddenly. Mrs. Durrell was taken to the mortuary, and identified the body of Chapman as that of the woman whom she saw in Hanbury street. This agrees with the evidence of Richardson and another witness; but the doctor's opinion is that the woman was killed two hours before he saw the body, which would make it about half past four o'clock. The attention of the police has been directed to a suspicious incident which occurred on Saturday. About ten o'clock in the evening a man passed through the Tower Subway from the Surrey to the Middlesex side, and said to the caretaker, “Have you caught any of the Whitechapel murderers yet?” He then produced a knife, about a foot in length, with a curved blade, and remarked, “This will do for them.” He was followed but ran away, and was lost sight of near Tooley street. The following is a description of the man:- Age, about 30; height, 5ft 3in; complexion and hair dark, with moustache and false whiskers, which he pulled off while running away. Dress, new black diagonal suit and light overcoat, and dark cloth double peak hat. The man arrested in suspicion of being concerned in the Spitalfields murder is still detained pending further inquiries. Mrs. Lloyd, who is stated to have given a graphic description of the supposed murderer, has been closely questioned by the police, and now denies that she saw a man with a knife running away. These unfounded reports are giving the police much unnecessary trouble.
The Eastern Morning News, a newspaper published in Hull, England, featured the following, dated September 17th 1888,
THE WHITECHAPEL TRAGEDIES. No further arrest has been made in connection with the murder of Annie Chapman, and the police practically have no substantial clue to work upon. The report that in their anxiety to bring the criminal to justice the members of H Division of Police have subscribed £50 to supplement the reward of £100 offered by Mr Samuel Montagu, M.P., is unfounded. The police of this division entertain hopes that the private offer of a reward of £100 may lead many of those who are frequenters of common lodging houses in the neighbourhood to have hitherto been rather reluctant to give information, to come forward and give evidence which may materially facilitate the work of the officers engaged in the unravelling the mystery. A large number of extra police and detectives are still engaged in patrolling the neighbourhood, and the increased surveillance has tended to abate the alarm in the East End.
The Hull Daily News, a newspaper published in Hull, England, featured the following, dated September 17th 1888,
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER. THE PENSIONER DISCOVERS HIMSELF. The pensioner Stanley, who has been referred to as associating with the murdered woman, has given the police an account of his movements since he last saw the deceased, which was on the Sunday preceding the murder. He has since been following his usual employment, without attempt at concealment. Stanley is said to be superior to the class frequenting lodging houses in Spitalfields, and has known Chapman some two years.
September 19th 1888
The Echo, a newspaper based in London, England, featured the following, dated September 19th 1888,
ANNIE CHAPPMAN'S DEATH. LIVELY EPISODE AT THE INQUEST. DR. PHILLIPS' EVIDENCE. PORTIONS OF THE BODY MISSING. The resumed inquiry into the circumstances of Annie Chapman's death at 29 Hanbury street, was held this afternoon, at the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel road, before Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, who was accompanied by his deputy, Mr. George Collier. Chief Inspector West, Inspector Abberline, Inspector Helson, and Inspector Chandler represented the police. “DARK ANNIE'S” FELLOW LODGER. Eliza Cooper, living at 35 Dorset street (a common lodging house), Spitalfields, said she had been lodging there for five months. On the Saturday before Annie Chapman's death, witness lent a piece of soap to the deceased. Ted Stanley was then present. On the following Tuesday witness asked Mrs. Chapman for the piece of soap lent her. Then they went to a public house, and a quarrel ensued. Did you strike her? - Yes, on the left eye and also on the head. When did you last see her alive? - On the Wednesday, 15th of September. She was then wearing three rings on the third finger of the left hand. Were they gold? - No, brass - all three. She has never had a gold wedding ring to my knowledge.
Did you know of anyone else besides Stanley with whom she associated? - She associated with several others besides Stanley. By the Jury - I could not say that any of the men are missing. “SHE HAD BEEN SEIZED BY THE CHIN” Dr. G.B. Phillips, re-examined, deposed - On the last occasion I mentioned that there were reasons why I thought the perpetrator of the murder caught hold of the woman's throat. On the left side, below the lower jaw, are three scratches, one and a half to two inches below the lower lobe of the ear, and going in the contrary direction to the incision in the throat. These are of recent date. The abrasions are on the left side, and on the right side are corresponding bruises. I washed the bruises, and they became much more distinct, whereas the bruises mentioned in my last evidence remained the same. The woman had been seized by the chin while the incisions in the throat had been perpetrated. BETTER NOT TO GIVE FULL DETAILS. Dr. Phillips then paused, and said that, in the interests of justice, he thought it would be better not to give the full details. The Coroner - We have to decide the cause of death, and have a right to hear the particulars. Whether that evidence is made public rests with the Press. I may say that I have never heard of any evidence being kept back before. Dr. Phillips - I am, of course, in the hands of the Court. What I was going to detail took place after death. The Coroner - That is a matter of opinion, Doctor. Medical men often differ, you know. “JUSTICE MIGHT BE FRUSTRATED” Dr. Phi
llips repeated that he did not think the details should be given. Justice might be frustrated and (glancing at some ladies and boys in the Court) - The Coroner remarked that justice had had a long time to solve the case; but he certainly thought that ladies and boys should leave the room. The Foreman - We are of opinion that the evidence the doctor wishes to keep back ought certainly to be given. The Coroner said he had delayed calling the evidence in order that it might not interfere with justice; but justice had had about a fortnight to avenge itself. Dr. Phillips - But it will not elucidate the cause of death. The Coroner (warmly) said he must have the evidence. The Court was then cleared of ladies and boys. PORTIONS OF THE BODY MISSING. Dr. Phillips (missing) - The abdominal wall had been removed in three portions, two taken from the anterior part, and the other from another part of the body. There was a greater portion of the body removed from the right side than the left. On placing these three flaps of skin together, it was evident that a portion was wanting. I removed the intestines as I found them in the yard. The mesentery vessels were divided through. The large intestine remained in situ, but cut through with a keen incision transversely. (Further details were given, which created a great sensation, the doctor asserting that other portions of the body were missing.) KNIFE FIVE OR SIX INCHES LONG. It was evident, continued the witness, that these absent portions, together with the incision in the large intestine, were the result of the same excising power. Thus I consider the weapon was from five to six inches long, and the appearance of the cuts confirm to me in the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the structures of the neck, must have been of a very sharp character. The mode of removal of the abdominal wall indicated a certain anatomical knowledge; but the incision of certain viscera conveyed to my kind a greater anatomical knowledge. It is only an inference, but I think I ought to mention it, that the early removal of the intestines in the yard was necessary to enable the operator to effect other incisions of certain organs. “MUST HAVE TAKEN FIFTEEN MINUTES” The Coroner - How long did it take to inflict all these injuries? Dr. Phillips - I could not have performed the removal in under a quarter of an hour. In reply to other questions, Dr. Phillips said that had he to excise the portions in a deliberate way, as a surgeon, it would have taken him an hour to remove them. USELESS TO PHOTOGRAPH RETINA. By the Jury - Witness, at an early stage, gave his advice to the Police that it would be useless to photograph the retina of the woman's eyes to see what was the last object retained on them. He also advised that bloodhounds would be of no use. The appearance of the dead woman's face was consistent with partial suffocation. ANNIE CHAPMAN SEEN IN SPITALFIELDS. Elizabeth Long, Church row, Whitechapel, stated that on Saturday morning, the day of deceased's death, she was passing down Hanbury street, to go to Spitalfields Market, at half past five o'clock, when she saw a man and a woman on the pavement. The man's back was turned towards Brick lane and the woman's towards Spitalfields Market. They were standing a few yards from No. 29 Hanbury street, the Brick lane end. Witness saw the woman's face. She had seen the body in the mortuary and was quite sure that it was the same. HER COMPANION “LOOKED LIKE A FOREIGNER.” Witness could not see the man's face. She noticed that he was dark, and had a brown hat turned up at the side. It was a brown “deerstalker.” Witness thought his coat was dark. It was a man who looked to be over 40 years of age. He was a little taller than the deceased. Did he look like a working man? - He looked like a foreigner. he was dark. Did he look like a dock labourer? - What I should call shabby genteel. They were talking loudly. He said to her, “Will you?” and she said, “Yes.” Was that all? - Yes. Did you see where they went to? - No. I went to my work, and did not look back. I saw nothing to make me think they were the worse for drink. NOT AN UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE. Was it not unusual to see a man and a woman, talking together at that hour of the day? - I see a lot of them sometimes talking at that hour.
