East End Murders

by Neil Storey

  Mortuary photograph of Elizabeth ‘Long Liz’ Stride. (Stewart P. Evans)

  They reached London and spent a night together in a casual ward and the following day John managed to earn 6d; at the inquest he recalled saying, ‘“Here, Kate, you take 4d and go to the lodging-house and I will go to Mile End,” but she said, “No, you go and have a bed and I will go to the casual ward,” and she went. I saw her again on Saturday (29 September) morning early.’

  Kelly decided to pawn a pair of his boots: Eddowes took them to the pawnbroker’s shop and received 2s 6d, pledging them under the name Jane Kelly. Eddowes and Kelly bought some tea and sugar and ate a breakfast in the lodging-house kitchen.

  By afternoon they were again without money. Kelly last saw Eddowes alive at about two o’clock in the afternoon, in Houndsditch. They parted on good terms, with Eddowes saying she was going over to Bermondsey to try and find her daughter Annie (from her previous relationship with Thomas Conway) to get some money from her. Eddowes had promised Kelly that she would be back by 4 p.m. and no later. She did not return.

  The next record of Eddowes is her arrest by City Constable Lewis Robinson (931), at 8.30 p.m. on the night of Saturday 29 September on Aldgate High Street. He had seen a crowd gather outside No. 29 where he discovered Eddowes drunk and lying on the footway. He then picked her up and propped her against the shutters, but she fell down sideways. With the aid of a fellow-constable, Robinson took her to Bishopsgate police station. When Robinson asked her name, she replied, ‘Nothing.’ Eddowes was then placed in a cell.

  And therein lay her fate. If she had been arrested for drunk and disorderly behaviour in the Metropolitan Police area she would have been put in the cells until the following morning; the City Police discharged drunks when they had sobered up. City Constable George Henry Hutt, 968, the gaoler at Bishopsgate station, took over the cells at 9.45 p.m. and, as per regulations, visited Eddowes in her cell several times, roughly every half hour: at first she remained asleep, but at 11.45 p.m. she was awake, and singing a song to herself. At 12.30 a.m. she asked when she would be able to leave. Hutt replied, ‘Shortly.’ To which she said, ‘I am capable of taking care of myself now.’ At 12.55 a.m. on Sunday morning, the inspector being out visiting, Hutt was directed by Sergeant Byfield to see if any of the prisoners were fit to be discharged. Finding Eddowes sober, and after she had given her name and address as Mary Ann Kelly, No. 6, Fashion-street, Spitalfields, she was allowed to leave.

  At about 12.58 a.m., when Hutt was taking her out of the cell, Eddowes asked him what time it was. Hutt answered, ‘Too late for you to get any more drink.’ To which she replied, ‘Well, what time is it?’ He replied, ‘Just on one.’ Thereupon she said, ‘I shall get a — fine hiding when I get home, then.’ Hutt reprimanded her: ‘Serve you right; you have no right to get drunk.’ Hutt then pushed open the swing-door leading to the passage, and said, ‘This way, missus.’ And Eddowes walked along the passage to the outer door. At the inquest Hutt recalled, ‘I said to her, “Please, pull it to.” She replied, “All right. Good night, old cock.” She pulled the door to within a foot of being closed, and I saw her turn to the left [towards Houndsditch].’

  Just 400 yards from Bishopsgate police station is Mitre Square and there at 1.45 a.m. that same night PC Edward Watkins 881 discovered the hideously mutilated body of Kate Eddowes.

  Major Henry Smith, the Acting Police Commissioner for the City of London force, recalled what happened next in his memoirs, From Constable to Commissioner, published in 1910:

  The night of Saturday, 29 September, found me tossing about in my bed at Cloak Lane Station, close to the river and adjoining Southwark Bridge. There was a railway goods depot in front, and a furrier’s premises behind my rooms; the lane was causewayed, heavy vans were going constantly in and out, and the sickening smell from the furrier’s skins was always present. You could not open the windows, and to sleep was an impossibility. Suddenly the bell at my head rang violently.

  The Illustrated Police News graphically reports the ‘Double Event’ of 30 September 1888.

  ‘What is it?’ I asked, putting my ear to the tube.

  ‘Another murder, sir, this time in the City.’ Jumping up, I was dressed and in the street in a couple of minutes. A hansom – to me a detestable vehicle – was at the door, and into it I jumped, as time was of the utmost consequence. This invention of the devil claims to be safe. It is neither safe nor pleasant. In winter you are frozen; in summer you are broiled. When the glass is let down your hat is generally smashed, your fingers caught between the doors, or half your front teeth loosened. Licensed to carry two, it did not take me long to discover that a 15-stone Superintendent inside with me, and three detectives hanging on behind, added neither to its comfort nor to its safety.

  Although we rolled like a ‘seventy-four’ in a gale, we got to our destination – Mitre Square – without an upset, where I found a small group of my men standing round the mutilated remains of a woman … The approaches to Mitre Square are three-by Mitre Street, Duke Street, and St James’s Place. In the south-western corner, to which there is no approach, lay the woman.

  Dr Frederick Gordon Brown, City Police surgeon, arrived at Mitre Square around 2 a.m. His report contained a description of the most hideous and extensive mutilations inflicted by the Ripper to date:

  The body was on its back, the head turned to left shoulder. The arms by the side of the body as if they had fallen there. Both palms upwards, the fingers slightly bent. The left leg extended in a line with the body. The abdomen was exposed. Right leg bent at the thigh and knee. The throat cut across.

  The intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder – they were smeared over with some feculent matter. A piece of about 2ft was quite detached from the body and placed between the body and the left arm, apparently by design. The lobe and auricle of the right ear were cut obliquely through.

  Body was quite warm. No death stiffening had taken place. She must have been dead most likely within the half hour. We looked for superficial bruises and saw none. No blood on the skin of the abdomen or secretion of any kind on the thighs. No spurting of blood on the bricks or pavement around. No marks of blood below the middle of the body. Several buttons were found in the clotted blood after the body was removed. There was no blood on the front of the clothes. There were no traces of recent connexion.

  When the body arrived at Golden Lane, some of the blood was dispersed through the removal of the body to the mortuary. The clothes were taken off carefully from the body. A piece of deceased’s ear dropped from the clothing.

  The face was very much mutilated. There was a cut about a quarter of an inch through the lower left eyelid, dividing the structures completely through. The upper eyelid on that side, there was a scratch through the skin on the left upper eyelid, near to the angle of the nose. The right eyelid was cut through to about half an inch.

  There was a deep cut over the bridge of the nose, extending from the left border of the nasal bone down near the angle of the jaw on the right side of the cheek. This cut went into the bone and divided all the structures of the cheek except the mucous membrane of the mouth.

  The tip of the nose was quite detached by an oblique cut from the bottom of the nasal bone to where the wings of the nose join on to the face. A cut from this divided the upper lip and extended through the substance of the gum over the right upper lateral incisor tooth.

  About half an inch from the top of the nose was another oblique cut. There was a cut on the right angle of the mouth as if the cut of a point of a knife. The cut extended an inch and a half, parallel with the lower lip.

  There was on each side of cheek a cut which peeled up the skin, forming a triangular flap about an inch and a half. On the left cheek there were two abrasions of the epithelium under the left ear.

  The throat was cut across to the extent of about 6in or 7in. A superficial cut commenced about an inch and a half below the lobe below, and about 2½in behind
the left ear, and extended across the throat to about 3in below the lobe of the right ear.

  The big muscle across the throat was divided through on the left side. The large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed. The larynx was severed below the vocal chord. All the deep structures were severed to the bone, the knife marking intervertebral cartilages. The sheath of the vessels on the right side was just opened.

  The carotid artery had a fine hole opening, the internal jugular vein was opened about an inch and a half – not divided. The blood vessels contained clot. All these injuries were performed by a sharp instrument like a knife, and pointed.

  The cause of death was haemorrhage from the left common carotid artery. The death was immediate and the mutilations were inflicted after death.

  The intestines had been detached to a large extent from the mesentery. About 2ft of the colon was cut away. Right kidney was pale, bloodless with slight congestion of the base of the pyramids.

  There was a cut from the upper part of the slit on the under surface of the liver to the left side, and another cut at right angles to this, which were about an inch and a half deep and 2½in long. Liver itself was healthy.

  The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed. The left renal artery was cut through. I would say that someone who knew the position of the kidney must have done it.

  The lining membrane over the uterus was cut through. The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump of three quarters of an inch. The rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments. I believe the wound in the throat was first inflicted. I believe she must have been lying on the ground.

  The wounds on the face and abdomen prove that they were inflicted by a sharp, pointed knife, and that in the abdomen by one 6in or longer.

  I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed. The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose.

  I think the perpetrator of this act had sufficient time, or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids. It would take at least five minutes.

  I cannot assign any reason for the parts being taken away. I feel sure that there was no struggle, and believe it was the act of one person.

  The throat had been so instantly severed that no noise could have been emitted. I should not expect much blood to have been found on the person who had inflicted these wounds.

  This night of macabre events was concluded with a discovery made by PC Alfred Long of A Division (on attachment to H Division) in the doorway of 108–19 Wentworth Model Dwellings, Goulston Street. It was a piece of material torn from Kate’s apron, smeared with blood and faeces, upon which the murderer had wiped his knife and hands. Dr Brown commented:

  My attention was called to the apron, particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin. I have seen the portion of an apron produced by Dr Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It is impossible to say that it is human blood on the apron. I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it (which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have), the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding.

  Above the apron fragment, written ‘in a good schoolboy hand’, was the statement: ‘The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.’ Two schools of thought enshroud this message: one suggests it was only a coincidence, that the rag was simply cast away by the murderer and just happened to land under the message; the other suggests it was a message left by the killer himself.

  Sir Charles Warren, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, attended the scene in person; no doubt fearing riots and reprisals against the Jewish population in the East End if such an inflammatory statement became popular knowledge, rather than wait until there was enough light to photograph the message he controversially overruled the other officers on the scene and only had the message copied down, personally giving a direct order to ‘obliterate the writing at once.’ Some accounts even claim Warren erased the message himself.

  It was to be a controversial decision that would ultimately contribute to his later resignation. Warren recorded his reasons in a confidential letter to the Under Secretary of State, the Home Office, on 6 November 1888:

  Sir,

  In reply to your letter of the 5th instant, I enclose a report of the circumstances of the Mitre Square Murder so far as they have come under the notice of the Metropolitan Police, and I now give an account regarding the erasing of the writing on the wall in Goulston Street, which I have already partially explained to Mr Matthews verbally.

  On 30 September, on hearing of the Berner Street murder, after visiting Commercial Street Station I arrived at Leman Street Station shortly before 5 a.m. and ascertained from the Superintendent Arnold all that was known there relative to the two murders.

  The most pressing question at that moment was some writing on the wall in Goulston Street evidently written with the intention of inflaming the public mind against the Jews, and which Mr Arnold with a view to prevent serious disorder proposed to obliterate, and had sent down an Inspector with a sponge for that purpose, telling him to await his arrival.

  I considered it desirable that I should decide the matter myself, as it was one involving so great a responsibility whether any action was taken or not.

  I accordingly went down to Goulston Street at once before going to the scene of the murder: it was just getting light, the public would be in the streets in a few minutes, in a neighbourhood very much crowded on Sunday mornings by Jewish vendors and Christian purchasers from all parts of London.

  There were several Police around the spot when I arrived, both Metropolitan and City.

  The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once.

  The Petticoat Lane market on Goulston Street in the late nineteenth century

  A discussion took place whether the writing could be left covered up or otherwise or whether any portion of it could be left for an hour until it could be photographed; but after taking into consideration the excited state of the population in London generally at the time, the strong feeling which had been excited against the Jews, and the fact that in a short time there would be a large concourse of the people in the streets, and having before me the Report that if it was left there the house was likely to be wrecked (in which from my own observation I entirely concurred) I considered it desirable to obliterate the writing at once, having taken a copy of which I enclose a duplicate.

  After having been to the scene of the murder, I went on to the City Police Office and informed the Chief Superintendent of the reason why the writing had been obliterated.

  I may mention that so great was the feeling with regard to the Jews that on the 13th ulto. the Acting Chief Rabbi wrote to me on the subject of the spelling of the word ‘Jewes’ on account of a newspaper asserting that this was Jewish spelling in the Yiddish dialect. He added ‘in the present state of excitement it is dangerous to the safety of the poor Jews in the East to allow such an assertion to remain uncontradicted. My community keenly appreciates your humane and vigilant action during this critical time.’

  It may be realised therefore if the safety of the Jews in Whitechapel could be considered to be jeopardised thirteen days after the murder by the question of the spelling of the word Jews, what might have happened to the Jews in that quarter had that writing been left intact.

  I do not hesitate myself to say that if that writing had been left there would have been an onslaught upon the Jews, property would have been wrecked, and lives would probably have been lost; and I was much gratified with the promptitude with which Superintendent Arnold was prepared to act in the matter if I
had not been there.

  I have no doubt myself whatever that one of the principal objects of the Reward offered by Mr Montagu was to shew to the world that the Jews were desirous of having the Hanbury Street Murder cleared up, and thus to divert from them the very strong feeling which was then growing up.

  I am, Sir,

  Your most obedient Servant,

  Charles Warren

  Shortly after the Ripper’s ‘Double Event’ on 30 September, a lurid pamphlet entitled The Curse of Mitre Square began to be circulated on the streets of the East End. It stated the Square had been damned since the murder of another woman on exactly the same spot by a mad monk (known as Brother Martin) in 1530. It is true to say that Mitre Square was indeed the site of the Priory of the Holy Trinity, founded in 1108 and dissolved in 1540, but the broadsheet goes on to state that a woman who was praying before the high altar had been attacked by the insane monk: his knife ‘descended with lightening rapidity, and pools of blood deluged the altar steps. With a demon’s fury the monk then threw down the corpse and trod it out of recognition.’

  Brother Martin then plunged the knife into his own heart. As the spot remained unhallowed, the Ripper simply fulfilled the ancient curse – so the author of the broadsheet argued. The police made door-to-door enquiries and posters were pasted up:

  Police Notice:

  To the Occupier.

  On the mornings of Friday 31 August, Saturday 8, and Sunday 30 September 1888, Women were murdered in or near Whitechapel, supposed by some one residing in the immediate neighbourhood. Should you know of any person to whom suspicion is attached, you are earnestly requested to communicate at once with the nearest Police Station.

  Metropolitan Police Office

  30th September 1888

  On 1 October 1888 a postcard smeared with blood and written in red ink was received by the Central News Agency. Its contents would immortalise the previous night’s atrocities as ‘The Double Event’: