by Covell, Mike
September 21st 1888
The Alderley and Wilmslow Advertiser, a newspaper published in Cheshire, England, featured the following, dated September 21st 1888,
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER. EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE. An important charge was made at the Thames Police Court on Tuesday which the police believe may throw some light upon the recent tragedies in Whitechapel. Charles Ludwig (40), a decently dressed German of 1, The Minories was charged with being drunk and threatening Alexander Finlay, of Leman-street, Whitechapel. Prosecutor said that at three o'clock that morning he was standing at a coffee stall in Whitechapel, when the accused came up drunk, and in consequence was refused to be served. He then said to the prosecutor “What are you looking at?” and then pulled out a knife and tried to stab witness. Ludwig followed him round the stall, and made several attempts to stab him. A constable came up and he was given into custody. Constable 221H said the prisoner was in a very excited condition, and witness had previously received information that prisoner was wanted in the city for attempting to cut a woman's throat with a razor. On the way to the station, he dropped a long bladed open knife, and on him was found a razor and a long bladed pair of scissors. - Inspector Pimley, H Division, asked the magistrates to remand the prisoner, as they had not had sufficient time to make the necessary inquiries concerning him. A city constable, John Johnson, stated that early on Tuesday he was on duty in the Minories, when he heard screams of “Murder” proceeding from a dark court, in which there was no light. The court led to some railway arches, and was well known as a dangerous locality. On going into the court he found the prisoner with an unfortunate. The former appeared to be under the influence of drink. Witness asked what he was doing there, when he replied “Nothing.” The woman, who appeared to be in a very frightened and agitated condition, said, “Oh, policeman, do take me out of this!” The woman was so frightened that she then made no further statement. He sent the man off, and walked with the woman to the end of his beat; when she said: “He frightened me very much when he pulled a big knife out,” and witness said, “Why didn't you tell me at the time,” and she replied: “I was too much frightened.” He then went and looked for the prisoner, but could not find him, and therefore warned several other constables of the occurrence. Witness had been out all the morning trying to find the woman, but up to that time without success. He should know her again. He believed prisoner worked in the neighbourhood. – The magistrates thereupon remanded prisoner. The arrest has caused intense excitement in the neighbourhood. Prisoner professes not to be able to speak English. He has been in this country about three months. He accounts for his time for about three weeks, but nothing is known of his doings before that time. The adjourned inquest on the body of Annie Chapman, who was murdered in Hanbury-street, Whitechapel, on the morning of the 8th inst., was resumed on Wednesday afternoon. Eliza Cooper, a hawker, stated that she knew deceased, and last saw her alive on the Wednesday preceding the tragedy. Deceased was then wearing three brass rings on her left hand. Deceased used to associate with two men known as Stanley and “Harry the hawker,” but she also brought men casually to the house where she lodged. Witness could not say if any of these men were now missing. Witness had quarrelled with deceased, and they had come to blows. – Dr. Phillips, divisional surgeon, was recalled, and informed by the Coroner that all the details of the post mortem examination should be placed on the depositions. – Dr. Phillips expressed regret that the coroner should have come to this decision, as he believed that to make public the further result of the examination would thwart the ends of justice. Eventually Dr. Phillips gave evidence indicating that the object of the mutilation was to obtain one of the abdominal parts. The weapon used must have been from five to six inches long. It must also have been very sharp, and there were numerous indications that the murderer possessed anatomical knowledge. He could not have performed all the injuries, even if there had been no struggle, in less than a quarter of an hour. – Edward Stanley, bricklayers labourer, known as the “Pensioner,” and other witnesses having been examined, the inquest was adjourned for a week. – The jury expressed a strong opinion that a Government reward should be offered.
The Woodford Times, a newspaper published in Essex, England, featured the following, dated September 21st 1888,
RESUMED INQUEST ON ANNIE CHAPMAN. Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, coroner for South-east Middlesex, resumed on the 19th inst. at the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel, the inquest into the circumstances attending the death of Annie Chapman, who was found in the yard of the house, 29, Hanbury-street, Whitechapel, on the morning of Saturday, Sept. 8, with her throat cut and her body frightfully mutilated.
Eliza Cooper, a hawker, lodging 35, Dorset-street, Spitalfields, said she knew the deceased and had a quarrel with her on the Tuesday before her death - Sept. 4 - in consequence of her bringing Mr. Stanley on the previous Saturday to 35, Dorset-street. The quarrel was about a piece of soap which she lent the deceased for Stanley to wash himself with. The witness and the deceased went to a public-house on the Tuesday, and while quarrelling there the deceased slapped her on the face, and the witness in return struck her on the left eye and on the chest. The witness last saw her alive on Wednesday, the 5th inst.; the deceased then wore three rings, but they were all brass rings, not gold. The deceased associated with Stanley and several others, whom she used to bring casually into the lodging-house. Dr. George B. Phillips, recalled, gave the reasons for his believing that the perpetrator of the crime had held the woman's chin while he cut her throat. There were abrasions on the left side of the neck, and on the corresponding side was a more marked bruise. These indications led him to the conclusion that the woman was seized by the chin while the incision in the throat was perpetrated. The Coroner asked for full details of his examination of the body. The Witness: I think the making public of the details of this examination is thwarting the ends of justice. The Coroner directed all females and boys to leave the hall. This having been done, he stated that he was bound to take all possible evidence, and whether it should be published was a matter for the Press; he was not responsible for that. The witness then proceeded to enlarge the evidence he had given at the last sitting, describing the condition of the organs that were cut or injured. One of the organs was entirely absent from the body. The appearance of the cut surfaces indicated that the instrument used must have been very sharp, and showed a certain amount of anatomical knowledge. The Coroner: How long would it take to produce all the injuries? The Witness: I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in the deliberate manner usual with a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour. The conclusion I came to was that the whole object of the operation was to obtain possession of a certain portion of the body. By the Foreman: I was asked by the police whether a photograph of the deceased's eye would be of any use; but I gave it as my opinion that the photograph of the eye would be useless in this case. I also was asked whether bloodhounds could be used with success. I said I thought not, as there was so much of the woman's blood in the yard. The injuries I found on the lower part of the woman's face were consistent with partial suffocation. Elizabeth Long, married, and living in Church-row, Whitechapel, said: I never saw the deceased till Saturday morning, the 8th inst., when I was passing along Hanbury-street to the Spitalfields-market. A public clock had just struck half-past five when I passed No. 29, Hanbury-street, and I there saw a gentleman and lady standing on the pavement talking together. I saw the woman's face and recognised it. I have seen the face of the deceased in the mortuary, and I recognise it as the same. I am sure it is the same person. I did not see the man's face. I only saw he had a brown hat on and he was dark. I cannot tell you what kind of clothes he had on; but I think he had a dark coat on. He was a man of over 40 years by the look of him. He appeared to be a little taller than the woman. In my opinion he looked like a foreigner - very dark. He looked, I think, like what is called shabby ge
nteel. They were talking loudly; and I heard him say, " Will you?" The woman said “Yes.” That is all I heard. I passed on. I did not see where they went. I went to my work. I see lots of men talking together as I pass along at that hour of the morning. Hence I take little notice of them. I distinctly heard the clock strike half-past five just before I saw the woman. Edward Stanley, a tall, elderly working man, said: I live at 1, Osborn-place, Osborn-street, Spitalfields. I am a bricklayer's labourer, and I am known by the name of the “Pensioner.” I knew the deceased. I visited her at 35, Dorset-street, once or twice, and at other times elsewhere. I last saw her alive on Sunday, the 2nd inst., between one and three o'clock. She was then wearing rings. I knew no one she was on bad terms with. I have never been with her week after week. The Coroner: Are you a pensioner? The Witness: Cannot I refuse to answer that question? The Coroner: It is said at one time a man was just going to receive a pension. The Witness: Then it cannot be me. The Coroner: Were you ever in the Royal Sussex Regiment? The Witness: Never. It is possible I may get discharged from my employ for this when I go back again. I am a law-abiding man, who interferes with nobody that does not interfere with me. Timothy Donovan, a deputy lodging-house keeper, said the “Pensioner” and the deceased used to come to his lodging-house from Saturday till Monday. He thought the “Pensioner” had been there six or seven Saturdays, and was last there the Saturday before the woman died. The Coroner: What do you say to that “Pensioner?” Edward Stanley: That is all wrong. I was at Gosport from August 6 to September 1. The Coroner: I should think the lodging-house keeper is mistaken. Albert Cadosch, living at 27, Hanbury-street, said he was a carpenter, and on Saturday, the 8th inst., he got up about a quarter-past five a.m., and went into the yard, and in returning about 20 minutes past five he heard a voice quite near him, and he thought probably it was in the yard of No. 29. He went into his house, and on going back to the yard he heard a sort of fall against the fence that divided the yard of No. 29 from No. 27. He went into the house again, and then into the street, going to his work. It was about two minutes after half-past five. He saw no man or woman in Hanbury-street when he went out. William Stevens, living at 35, Dorset-street, saw the deceased at twenty minutes past twelve on the Saturday morning, the 8th inst. She was not the worse for drink, and she wore rings on her fingers. When she left the kitchen, where he saw her, she said she would not be long out of bed. The Coroner (to the Jury): Well, that is all the evidence there is. It is a question for you now to say whether you would like to close the inquest, or have it adjourned. The jury expressed an opinion in favour of an adjournment, to see if the police could get any further evidence; and the inquest was accordingly further adjourned.
September 22nd 1888
The East London Advertiser, a newspaper published in London, England, featured the following, dated September 22nd 1888
INQUEST ON THE WOMAN CHAPMAN. The inquest on the woman Chapman, who was murdered in Whitechapel on the 8th inst., was resumed on Wednesday. Eliza Cooper, a hawker, lodging at 35, Dorset-street, Spitalfields, said she knew the deceased and had a quarrel with her on the Tuesday before her death, in consequence of her bringing Mr. Stanley on the previous Saturday to 35, Dorset-street. The quarrel was about a piece of soap, which she lent the deceased for Stanley to wash himself with. The witness and the deceased went to a public-house on the Tuesday, and while quarrelling there the deceased slapped her on the face, and the witness in return struck her on the left eye and on the chest. The witness last saw her alive the following day, the deceased then wore three rings, but they were all brass rings, not gold. The deceased associated with Stanley and several others, whom she used to bring casually into the lodging-house. - Dr. George B. Phillips, recalled, gave the reasons for his believing that the perpetrator of the crime had held the woman's chin while he cut her throat. -The witness then proceeded to enlarge the evidence he had given at the last sitting, describing the condition of the organs that were cut or injured. One of the organs was entirely absent from the body. The appearance of the cut surfaces indicated that the instrument used must have been very sharp, and showed a certain amount of anatomical knowledge. - Elizabeth Long, married, and living in Church-row, Whitechapel, said she never saw the deceased till Saturday morning, the 8th inst., when she was passing along Hanbury-street to the Spitalfields-market. A public clock had just struck half-past 5 when she passed No. 29, Hanbury-street, and she there saw a gentleman and lady standing on the pavement talking together. She had seen the face of the deceased in the mortuary and recognised it. She did not see the man's face. She only saw he had a brown hat on and he was dark. She could not say what kind of clothes he had on; but she thought he had a dark coat on. He was a man of over 40 years of age by the look of him. He appeared to be a little taller than the woman. He looked like a foreigner - very dark. He looked like what was called shabby genteel. They were talking loudly; and she heard him say “Will you?” The woman said “Yes.” That was all she heard. - Edward Stanley, a tall, elderly working man, said he was a bricklayer's labourer, and was known by the name of the “Pensioner.” He knew the deceased. He visited her at 35, Dorset-street, once or twice, and at other times elsewhere. He last saw her alive on Sunday, the 2nd inst., between 1 and 3 o'clock. She was then wearing rings. He knew no one she was on bad terms with. He had never been with her week after week, and it was untrue for Donovan, the lodging-house deputy, to say that he had. - William Stevens, living at 35, Dorset-street, saw the deceased at 20 minutes past 12 on the Saturday morning, the 8th inst. She was not the worse for drink, and she wore rings on her finger. When she left the kitchen, where he saw her, she said she would not be long out of bed. -The Coroner (to the jury): Well, that is all the evidence there is. It is a question for you now to say whether you would like to close the inquest, or have it adjourned. -The jury expressed an opinion in favour of an adjournment to see if the police could get any further evidence; and the inquest was accordingly adjourned till Wednesday, the 26th inst. The inquests on the last two women who have met with their deaths at the hands of the murderer were resumed this week by Mr. Wynne Baxter, but no evidence was elicited of a nature likely to throw any light on the crime. The poor old mortuary keeper, Robert Mann, came in for some strong censure, for having touched the body before the doctor or police saw it; while the question of the great need for a central mortuary, or, at any rate, better accommodation than is provided in Old Montague-street, was well ventilated. At the inquest on Chapman, Dr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, under protest, gave the details of the mutilation of the deceased. Of course, as might have been expected, they were almost beyond description, and needless to say they did not find their way into the papers. The proceedings were further adjourned, and it is expected that at the next meeting the terms of the verdict, which will doubtless contain allusions to the special features of these outrages, will be settled. Up to the present no further arrests have been made. The comic papers all contain references to the condition of the police under Sir Charles Warren, while three of them devote cartoons to the subject, illustrating the want of organisation there is at Scotland-yard.
The Munster News and Limerick and Clare Advocate, published in Limerick, Ireland, featured the following, dated September 22nd 1888,
WHITECHAPEL MURDER. The jury inquiry into the horrible murder of the woman Chapman at Whitechapel, returned a verdict this afternoon of wilful murder against unknown persons.
The Macclesfield Courier and Herald, featured the following, dated September 22nd 1888,
