Annie Chapman - Wife, Mother, Victim: The Life & Death of a Victim of Jack The Ripper

by Covell, Mike

  The Eastern Post & City Chronicle, featured the following, dated September 22nd 1888,

  RESUMED INQUEST ON ANNIE CHAPMAN. MR. WYNNE E. BAXTER, coroner for South-East Middlesex, resumed on Wednesday afternoon, 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, September 8th, with her throat cut and her body frightfully mutilated. 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 - September 4th - 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. 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 then proceeded to enlarge the evidence he had given at the last sitting, describing the condition of the organs that were cut or injured. The conclusion he 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 was also 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. After Elizabeth Long had given evidence, 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. 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.

  September 23rd 1888

  The People, a newspaper published in London, England, featured the following, dated September 23rd 1888,

  THE INQUEST ON ANNIE CHAPMAN. Startling Medical Evidence. Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, the coroner for Southeast Middlesex, resumed his inquiries on Wednesday into the circumstances attending the death of Annie Chapman, otherwise Annie Sievey, who was brutally murdered on the 8th instant in the yard of 29 Hanbury street, Whitechapel. The inquest was held, as before, in the hall of the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel road. Eliza Cooper, the first witness, said: I am a hawker, and I knew the deceased. I had a quarrel with her on the Tuesday before her death. That was on September 4th. On the previous Saturday she brought Mr. Stanley to the lodging house. Stanley did not give up the soap. Then afterwards we went to a public house, where Stanley gave her two shillings. On the Tuesday morning I saw the deceased again. I met her in the kitchen and asked her for my soap. She threw me a halfpenny and told me to buy the soap. We then went to the Ringers public house, still quarrelling. She struck me and I then struck her twice, once on the eye and once on the chest. I saw afterwards the blow had marked her face. The last time I saw her alive was on the Wednesday. She was wearing three rings on the left hand. These were brass rings. She never had a gold wedding ring since I have known her - that is for fifteen months. She only associated with Stanley and Harry the Hawker, as far as I know. I did not see her after Wednesday, September 5th. Deceased used to bring men casually into the lodging house. I cannot say if any are missing. What Dr. Phillips Says. Dr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, was recalled. The coroner said that all the details of the post mortem should be placed on the depositions. Dr. Phillips: I cannot help regretting that you have come to this conclusion. There was evidence to show that the person who cut the deceased's throat must have caught hold of the woman's chin. There were scratchings on the chin and on the right side of the face near the eye. On the right side of the face there was a well marked bruise. I watched these bruises, and they became much more distinct, whereas the older bruises remained the same. The doctor here again said it would be a pity to publish the further details, because it might thwart the interests of justice. The coroner said that they were bound to have the evidence, but the boys (press messengers) and some ladies present must leave the court. The court was cleared of women and boys. The Foreman: We think the full evidence should be given. The Coroner: I think the details should be heard. I have never heard of evidence at an inquest being kept back. This evidence has been delayed for some time, and it is now a fortnight since this inquiry was opened, so that justice has had time to avenge itself. As to the publication of the evidence, the responsibility rests not with me but with the press. The evidence already given on the last occasion by the doctor was then read over by the coroner. Dr. Phillips (continuing) in the course of his evidence, some of which was unfit for publication, said: The abdominal wall had been removed in three portions, two taken from the anterior part. There was a greater portion of skin removed on the right side than on the left. On adjusting these three flaps of skin it was evident that a portion surrounding and constituting the navel was wanting. I removed the intestines in the same manner as I found them in the yard on the morning of the 8th. The necessary vessels supplying them were severed. The larger intestine remained in situ. Part of the bladder and other portions of the internal organs were absent, and could nowhere be traced. The womb had been cut away and was missing. It was certain that these absent portions, together with the division of the large intestine, were the result of the same excision, hence my opinion that the length of the weapon was from five to six inches, probably more. The appearance of the cut surfaces confirmed me in the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the neck, had been of a very sharp character. The mode of removal of the abdominal wall indicated a certain amount of anatomical knowledge, as the excision in two or three portions, and the non wounding of the intestine in not more than one part seemed to indicate. It Must Have Taken a Quarter of an Hour. The Coroner: Can you give any idea as to the time it took to inflict these injuries? Dr. Phillips: I myself could not have inflicted all those injuries, and then without a struggle, in less than a quarter of an hour. If done in the more deliberate manner adopted by a surgeon, it would have taken nearly an hour. For that reason, I say the mutilations were hastily performed. The Coroner: What quantity of the contents of the stomach are absent? Dr. Phillips: The missing portions would go into a breakfast cup. I discovered no traces of blood upon the palings. 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 a 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: I live at 3 Church row, and I am married. I never saw the deceased until Saturday morning, September 8th, when I was passing down Hanbury street. I was going to market. It was half past five. I know that because the brewers'
clock had just struck. I was on the same side a No. 29. I saw a man and women standing on the pavement talking. The man's back was turned towards Brick lane, and the woman's back was towards Spitalfields Market. They were near 29 Hanbury street - only a few yards from that house. I saw the woman's face. It was the deceased, whom I saw at the mortuary after death. I am sure it is the same woman. The man had a brown hat on, but I could not distinguish his face. I think he had on a dark coat, but I am not certain. He was a man who looked to be over 40 years of age. He seemed to be a little taller than the deceased. He appeared to be a foreigner, and was shabbily dressed. They were talking loudly. He said to her, “Will you?” and she said, “Yes.” That is all I heard. I passed on, and I did not look back. I saw nothing to make me think that either of them were the worse for drink. It was not unusual to see men and women talking together at that hour. That “Pensioner.” Edward Stanley said: I live at No. 1 Osborne street, Spitalfields. I am a bricklayer's labourer, and am known as “the pensioner.” I knew the deceased, and used occasionally to visit her. I last saw her alive on Sunday, September 2nd., between one and three in the afternoon. She was wearing two rings when I saw her. I should think they were brass. I do not know of any one she was on bad terms with. She had slight black eye that some woman had given her. The Foreman: The blows were given on Tuesday, the 4th inst. Witness: It is possible that I saw deceased again casually after Sunday, as I was doing nothing all the week. I did not go to the same lodging house with the deceased every week. I never stayed with deceased from Saturday to Monday. The Coroner: Are you a pensioner? Witness: Am I obliged to answer that question? I have no pension and never belonged to the West Sussex Regiment. I am a law abiding man. Donovan, the lodging house deputy, recalled, said: This man, Stanley, is the man I know as “the pensioner.” He used to come to the lodging house on Saturday and stay until Monday with the deceased woman. He is the man who told me to always keep his bed for him on Saturdays. That was on the second Saturday he came. He came for six or seven Saturdays following, the last time being the Saturday before the woman's death. On that Saturday he paid for one night, and the deceased afterwards paid for Sunday night. Stanley stayed with her till Monday. Now, “Pensioner,” What do you Say? The Coroner: What do you say to that, Mr. Stanley? Stanley: You can cross it all out. I was at Gosport from August 6th till September 1st, so I could not have been at the lodging house every Saturday for the previous six weeks. The deceased had a husband at Windsor, a coachman. I called at the lodging house after the murder to inquire about the deceased. After reading in the papers what you said about me I communicated with the police. The coroner said he thought the lodging house keeper had made a mistake in the man. Albert Cadosch, a carpenter, stated that he resided at No. 27 Hanbury street. That was next door to No. 29. On Saturday, the 8th inst., he got up at about 5.15 and went into the yard of his house. As he returned across the yard to the back door of his house, he heard a voice say quite close to him, “No.” He believed it came from No. 29. He went into the house, and returned to the yard three or four minutes afterwards. He then heard a sort of A Fall Against the Fence. The fence divided his yard from No. 29. Something seemed suddenly to touch the fence. He did not look to see what it was. He did not hear any other noise. By the Coroner: He did not hear the rustling of any clothes. Witness then left the house and went to his work. When he passed Spitalfields Church it was about thirty two minutes past five. He did not hear people in the yard as a rule, but had now and then heard them at that time in the morning. By the Jury: He did not go into the yard out of curiosity. He had been under an operation at the hospital. He informed the police the same day of what he had heard. The palings were about 5ft 6in in height. He had not the curiosity to look over the fence, as at times the next door people were early risers. When he left the house he did not see any man or woman in Hanbury street. He did not see Mrs. Long. William Stevens. a painter, of 35 Dorset street, deposed that he knew the deceased, whom he last saw alive about twelve minutes past twelve in the early morning of her death. She was then in the kitchen of the lodging house, and was not the worse for drink. At that time she had Rings on her Fingers. Witness believed the piece of envelope produced was the one he saw deceased pick up by the fireplace. He noticed that it was about the size of the piece produced, and he saw it had a red post mark on it. Deceased then pulled out a box containing pills from her pocket, and the box breaking she put the pills into the piece of paper, and put it into her pocket. He saw deceased leave the kitchen, and thought she was going to bed, as she said she would not be long out of bed. By the Coroner: He did not know of any one with whom the deceased was on bad terms. The coroner said that was all the evidence forthcoming. It was a question for the jury whether they would adjourn the case or return their verdict.

  September 26th 1888

  The Echo, a newspaper based in London, England, featured the following, dated September 26th 1888,

  WHITECHAPEL MURDER. CLOSE OF INQUEST. CORONER'S SUMMING UP AND VERDICT. STARTLING SUGGESTION. The inquest on the body of Annie Chapman, who was found horribly mutilated in a yard at 29 Hanbury street, Commercial road, on September the 8th last, was concluded today. No further evidence in relation to the case was forthcoming. The Coroner, therefore, summed up the evidence to the Jury. He first congratulated them on the fact that their labours were nearly completed; “although, up to the present, they have not resulted in the detection of the criminal,” continued the Coroner, “I have no doubt that if the perpetrator of this foul murder is eventually discovered, our efforts will not have been useless. The evidence given is now on the records of this Court, and could be used even if the witnesses were not forthcoming; while the publicity given has already elicited further information, which may perhaps be of the utmost importance.” A SPITALFIELDS LODGING HOUSE. Mr. Baxter then dealt with the evidence given by the various witnesses. After referring to the life which the deceased had been leading, Mr. Baxter continued:- “The glimpses of life in those days which the evidence in this case discloses is sufficient to make us feel that there is much in the nineteenth century civilisation of which we have small reason to be proud; but you who are constantly called together to hear the sad tales of starvation, of semi starvation, of misery, immorality, and wickedness, which some of the occupants of the five thousand beds in this district have every week to relate to Coroner's inquests, do not require to be reminded of what life in a Spitalfields lodging house means. It was in one of these that the older bruises found on the temples and on front of the chest of the deceased were received, in a trumpery quarrel, a week before her death. It was in one of these that she was seen a few hours before her mangled remains were discovered.” PRECEDING THE MURDER. “On the afternoon and evening of Friday, the 7th of September (continued the Coroner) she divided her time partly in such a place as 35 Dorset Street, and partly in the Ringers public house, where she spent whatever money she had, so that between one and two on the morning of Saturday, when the money for her bed is demanded, she is obliged to admit that she is without means, and at once turns out into the street to find it. She leaves there at 1.45. a.m. She is seen off the premises by the night watchman, and is observed to turn down Little Paternoster row into Brushfield street, and not in the more direct direction of Hanbury street. On her wedding finger she is wearing two or three rings, which appear to have been palpably of base metal, as the witnesses are all clear about their material and value. There is then the evidence of Mrs. Long, who states that she saw the deceased standing within a few yards of the place where the murder was committed in Hanbury street. That was about four hours after Annie Chapman had left Dorset street.” SCENE OF THE MURDER. “But many minutes after Mrs. Long passed them cannot have elapsed,” said the Coroner," before the deceased became a mutilated corpse in the yard of 29 Hanbury street, close by where she was last seen by any witness. This place is a fair sample of a large number of houses in the neighbourhood. It was built, like hundreds of others, for the Spitalfields weavers, and when hand looms
were driven out by steam power, these were converted into dwellings for the poor. Its size is about such as a superior artisan would occupy in the country, but its condition is such as would to a certainty leave it without a tenant. In this place seventeen persons were living, from a woman and her son sleeping in a cat's meat shop on the ground floor to David and his wife and their three grown up sons, all sleeping together in an attic. The street door and the yard door were never locked, and the passage and the yard appear to have been constantly used by people who had no legitimate business there. There is little doubt that the deceased knew the place, for it is only 300 or 400 yards from where she lodged. If so, it is quite unnecessary to assume that her companion had any knowledge; in fact, it is easier to believe that he was ignorant both of the nest of living beings by whom he was surrounded, and of their occupations and habits." CRIMINAL'S COOLNESS AND DETERMINATION. “The deceased was not intoxicated at the time, and she therefore entered the house in full possession of her faculties, although with a very different object to her companion. From the evidence which the condition of the yard affords and the medical examination discloses, it appears that after the two had passed through the passage and opened the swing door at the end, they descended the three steps into the yard. On their left hand side there was a recess between these steps and the palings. Here a few feet from the house and a less distance from the paling they must have stood. The wretch must then have seized the deceased, perhaps with Judas like approaches. He seized her by the chin. He pressed her throat, and while thus preventing the slightest cry, he at the same time produced insensibility and suffocation. There is no evidence of any struggle. The clothes are not torn. Even in these preliminaries, the wretch seems to have known how to carry out efficiently his nefarious work. The deceased was then lowered to the ground and laid on her back; and, although in doing so she may have fallen slightly against the fence, this movement was probably effected with care. Her throat was then cut in two places with savage determination, and the injuries to the abdomen commenced. All was done,” said the Coroner, “with cool impudence and reckless daring; but, perhaps, nothing is more noticeable than the emptying of her pockets, and the arrangement of their contents with businesslike precision in order near her feet.” NO CRY - NO MEANINGLESS CUTS. “The murder seems, like the Buck's row case, to have been carried out without a cry. The brute who committed the offence did not even take the trouble to cover up his ghastly work, but left the body exposed to the view of the first comer. This accords but little with the trouble taken with the rings, and suggests either that he had at length been disturbed, or that, as the daylight broke, a sudden fear suggested the danger of detection that he was running. The body had not been dissected, but the injuries have been made by some one who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. There are no meaningless cuts. The organ has been taken by one who knew where to find it, what difficulties he would have to contend against and how he should use his knife so as to abstract the organ without injury to it. For instance, no mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations. It must have been some one accustomed to the post mortem room.” THE CRIMINAL'S OBJECT. “The conclusion that the desire to possess the missing abdominal organ seems overwhelming. We are driven to the deduction that the abstraction of the missing portion of abdominal viscera was the object, and the theft of the rings was only a thin veiled blind, an attempt to prevent the real intention being discovered. The amount missing would go into a breakfast cup; and, had not the medical examination been of a thorough and searching character, it might easily have been left unnoticed that there was any portion of the body which had been taken.” A STARTLING SUGGESTION. “Within a few hours of the issue of the morning papers containing a report of the medical evidence given at the last sitting of the Court, I received a communication from an officer of one of our great medical schools, that they had information which might or might not have a distinct bearing on our inquiry. I attended at the first opportunity, and was informed by the sub-curator of the Pathological Museum that some moths ago an American called on him, and asked him to procure a number of specimens of the organ that was missing in the deceased. He stated his willingness to give £20 a piece for each specimen. He stated that his object was to issue an actual specimen with each copy of a publication on which he was then engaged. He was told that his request was impossible to be complied with, but he still urged his request. He wished them preserved, not in spirits of wine, but in glycerine, in order to preserve them in a flaccid condition, and he wished them sent to America direct. It is known that this request was repeated to another institution of similar character. Now is it not possible that the knowledge of this demand may have incited some abandoned wretch to possess himself of a specimen? It seems beyond belief that such inhuman wickedness could enter into the mind of any man, but, unfortunately, our criminal annals prove that every crime is possible. I believe that publicity may possible further elucidate this fact, and therefore I have not withheld from you the information. By means of the Press some further explanation may be forthcoming from America, if not from here.” HINTS AS TO THE CRIMINAL. “It is a great misfortune that nearly three weeks have elapsed without the chief actor in this awful tragedy having been discovered. Surely, it is not too much even now to hope that the ingenuity of our detective force will succeed in unearthing this monster. It is not as if there were no clue to the character of the criminal or the cause of his crime. His object is clearly divulged. His anatomical knowledge carries him out of the category of a common criminal, for that knowledge could only have been obtained by assisting at post mortems, or by frequenting the post mortem room. Thus, the class in which search must be made, although a large one, is limited. Moreover, it must have been a man who was from home, if not all night, at least during the early hours of the 8th of September. His hands were undoubtedly bloodstained, for he did not stop to use the tap in the yard as the pan of clean water under it shows. If the theory of lunacy be correct (which I very much doubt) the class is still further limited; while if Mrs. Long's memory does not fail, and the assumption be correct that the man who was talking to the deceased at half past five was the culprit, he is even more clearly defined. In addition to his former description, we should know that he was a foreigner of dark complexion, over 40 years of age, a little taller than the deceased, of shabby genteel appearance, with a brown deerstalker hat on his head and a dark coat on his back. If your views accord with mine,” said Mr. Baxter, in concluding his address to the jury, “you will be of opinion that we are confronted with a murder of no ordinary character, committed not from jealousy, revenge, or robbery, but from motives less adequate than the many which still disgrace out civilisation, mar our progress, and blot the pages of our Christianity.” THE VERDICT. The Jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of “Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown.”