Inquest on Catherine Eddowes, October 5–12
Testimony of Eliza Gold. She recognized the deceased as her sister, whose name was Catherine Eddowes. She was not married but was living with a man named Kelly. Her sister had not been married. Her age last birthday was forty-three, as well as witness could remember. Before she went to live with Kelly she had lived with a man named Conway for some years. She had had two children by him, who were married.
Testimony of John Kelly. He was a labourer and jobbed about the markets. He had seen and recognized the body of the deceased as Catherine Conway. Witness was last with [her] at two o’clock on Saturday afternoon in Houndsditch. She said she was going to see if she could find her daughter Annie in Bermondsey. She promised to be back at four o’clock and no later. She did not return, but witness heard that she was locked up on Saturday night at Bishopsgate. He did not make inquiries about her, feeling sure that she would return on Sunday morning. He had heard that she had been locked up because she had had “a drop to drink.”
Testimony of Police Constable Lewis Robinson. Robinson stated that about half-past eight o’clock on the night of the 29th he was on duty in High Street, Aldgate, where he saw a crowd of persons. He then saw a woman who was drunk and who had since been recognized as the deceased. She was lying on the footway. Witness asked if anyone in the crowd knew her or where she lived, but he received no answer. On the arrival of another constable they took her to Bishopsgate Police Station, where she was placed in a cell.
City Solicitor: Do you recollect whether she was wearing an apron?
Witness: Yes, she was.
City Solicitor: Could you identify it?
Witness: I could if I saw the whole of it. —A brown paper parcel was produced, from which two pieces of apron were taken and shown to the witness, who said: To the best of my knowledge and belief that is the apron.
Testimony of Constable George Henry Hutt. On Saturday night at a quarter to ten he took over the prisoners, among whom was the deceased. He visited her several times in the cell until five minutes to one o’clock, when he was directed by Sergeant Byfield to see whether any of the prisoners were fit to be discharged. The deceased was found to be sober and was brought from the cell to the office, and after giving the name of Mary Ann Kelly, she was discharged.
City Solicitor: It was not witness but Sergeant Byfield who discharged her. She left the station about one o’clock. She said nothing to witness as to where she was going. About two minutes before one o’clock, when bringing her out of the cell, she asked witness the time and he replied, “Too late for you to get any more drink.” She then said, “I shall get a d—— fine hiding when I get home.” Witness gathered from that that she was going home. He noticed that she was wearing an apron and to the best of his belief the apron shown to the last witness was the one.
Testimony of Joseph Lawende. On the night of the murder he was at the Imperial Club in Duke Street with Joseph Levy and Harry Harris. They were out of the club at half-past one and left the place about five minutes later. They saw a man and a woman standing together at a corner in Church Passage, which led into Mitre Square. The woman was standing with her face toward the man. Witness could not see the woman’s face; the man was taller than she. She had on a black jacket and bonnet. He saw her put her hand on the man’s chest. Witness had seen some of the clothing at the police station, and he believed the articles were the same that the woman he referred to was wearing.
Coroner: Can you tell us what sort of man it was with whom she was speaking?
Witness: He had on a cloth cap with a peak.
Coroner: Unless the jury wish it I have a special reason why no further description of this man should be given now.
The jury assented to [his] wish.
Testimony of Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown.
City Solicitor: Does the nature of the wounds lead you to any conclusion as to the kind of instrument with which they were inflicted?
Witness: With a sharp knife, and it must have been pointed. And from the cut in the abdomen I should say the knife was at least six inches long.
City Solicitor: Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed great anatomical skill?
Witness: A good deal of knowledge as to the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them.
City Solicitor: Could the organs removed be used for any professional purpose?
Witness: They would be of no use for a professional purpose.
City Solicitor: You have spoken of the extraction of the left kidney. Would it require great skill and knowledge to remove it?
Witness: It would require a great deal of knowledge as to its position to remove it. It is easily overlooked. It is covered by a membrane.
City Solicitor: Would not such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by one accustomed to cutting up animals?
Witness: Yes.
City Solicitor: Can you as a professional man assign any reason for the removal of certain organs from the body?
Witness: I cannot.
Testimony of Dr. George William Sequeira.
City Solicitor: Have you formed any opinion that the murderer had any design with respect to any particular part?
Witness: I have formed the opinion that he had no particular design on any particular organ.
City Solicitor: Judging from the injuries inflicted, do you think he was possessed of great anatomical skill?
Witness: No, I do not.
Testimony of Police Constable Alfred Long. Long stated that he was on duty in Goulston Street, Whitechapel, on the morning of the 30th. At about 2:55 he found a portion of an apron (produced as before). There were recent stains of blood on it. It was lying in the passage leading to a staircase of 118 and 119, ordinary model dwelling-houses. Above it on the wall was written in chalk, “The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.” He had previously passed the spot where he found the apron at twenty minutes after two, but it was not there then.
City Solicitor: Have you not put the word “not” in the wrong place? Is it not “The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing”? Witness repeated the words as he had previously read them.
City Solicitor: How do you spell “Jews”?
Witness: J-e-w-s.
City Solicitor: Now, was it not on the wall “J-u-w-e-s”? Is it not possible you are wrong?
Witness: It may be as to the spelling.
Testimony of Detective Daniel Halse. Witness went to Goulston Street to the spot where the apron had been discovered. He remained there and [Detective] Hunt went to Mr. M’William for instructions to have the writing photographed. Directions were given for that to be done. Some of the Metropolitan Police thought it might cause a riot—if the writing were seen—and an outbreak against the Jews. It was decided to have the writing rubbed out.
City Solicitor: Did anyone suggest that it would be possible to take out the word “Jews” and leave the rest of the writing there?
Witness: I suggested that the top line might be rubbed out, and the Metropolitan Police suggested the word “Juwes.” The fear on the part of the Metropolitan Police of a riot was the sole cause of the writing on the wall being rubbed out.
FURTHER REPORTS
October 1. At three o’clock yesterday afternoon a meeting of nearly a thousand persons took place in Victoria Park. After several speeches upon the conduct of the Home Secretary and Sir Charles Warren [Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis], a resolution was unanimously passed that it was high time both officers should resign and make way for some officers who would leave no stone unturned for the purpose of bringing the murderers to justice, instead of allowing them to run riot in a civilized city like London. On Mile-End-Waste during the day four meetings of the same kind were held and similar resolutions passed.
Letter to the Editor of The Times.
Sir: I beg to suggest the organization of a small force of plain-clothes constables mounted on bicycles for t
he rapid and noiseless patrolling of streets and roads by night. Your obedient servant.
Fred. Wellesley.
October 2. Two communications of an extraordinary nature, both signed “Jack the Ripper,” have been received by the Central News Agency, the one on Thursday last and the other yesterday morning. The first was a letter bearing the E.C. postmark in which reference was made to the atrocious murders previously committed in the East End, which the writer confessed in a brutally jocular vein to have committed, stating that in the “next job” he did he would “clip the lady’s ears off” and send them to the police, and also asking that the letter might be kept back until he had done “a bit more work.”
The second communication was a postcard and, as above stated, it was received yesterday morning. It bore the date “London, E., October 1” and was as follows: “I was not coddling, dear old Boss, when I gave you the tip. You’ll hear about Saucy Jacky’s work tomorrow. Double event this time. Number One squealed a bit; couldn’t finish straight off. Had not time to get ears for police. Thanks for keeping last letter back till I got to work again.” The postcard was sent to Scotland Yard. No doubt is entertained that the writer of both communications, whoever he may be, is the same person.
At a late hour last night it was decided by the City Police to offer a reward for the discovery and conviction of the criminal.
At a meeting of the Whitechapel District Board of Works held yesterday evening, Mr. Catmur said he thought that the board as the local authority should express their horror and abhorrence of the crimes which had been perpetrated in the district and that they should address the authorities really responsible. Proceeding, Mr. Catmur spoke of the evil effect which had resulted in the district in the loss of trade. Evening business had become practically extinct in many trades, women finding themselves unable to pass through the streets without an escort.
A correspondent writes: “There are most remarkable coincidences with regard to the times at which all these murders have been committed which demand particular attention. The first and third of the murders, those of Martha [Tabram] and Mrs. Chapman, were committed on exactly the same date of two separate months—namely the 7th of August and September—while the second and fourth murders had the same relative coincidence, both being perpetrated on the last days of August and September. If the same hand carried out these crimes, these facts seem to point to the idea that the criminal was one who had to be absent from the scene of his crimes for regular periods.”
Letter to the Editor of The Times.
Sir: With regard to the suggestion that bloodhounds might assist in tracking the East End murderer, as a breeder of bloodhounds and knowing their power, I have little doubt that, had a hound been put upon the scent of the murderer while fresh, it might have done what the police have failed in. There are doubtless owners of bloodhounds willing to lend them if any of the police—which, I fear, is improbable—know how to use them. I am, Sir, your obedient servant.
Percy Lindley.
October 3.
Letter to the Editor of The Times.
Sir: Will you allow me to recommend that all the police boots should be furnished with a noiseless sole and heel, of indiarubber or other material, to prevent the sound of their measured tread being heard at night, which would enable them to get close to a criminal before he would be aware of their approach? Yours faithfully.
L. R. Thomson.
October 4. An American who refuses to give his name or any account of himself was arrested last night on suspicion of being the East End murderer. He is well dressed, rather tall, of slight build, and clean shaven. He accosted a woman in Cable Street, asked her to go with him, and threatened that if she refused he would “rip her up.” The woman screamed and the man rushed to a cab. The police gave chase, got upon the cab, seized the man, and took him to Leman Street Police Station, where he asked the inspector in charge, “Are you the boss?”
October 5. Up to half-past one o’clock this morning no arrest had been reported at any City Police station in connection with the East End murders. The American who was arrested on Wednesday evening was released yesterday.
October 6. We are requested to state that Sir Charles Warren has been making inquiries as to the practicability of employing bloodhounds for use in special cases in the streets of London, and having ascertained that dogs can be procured that have been accustomed to work in a town, he is making immediate arrangements for their use in London.
The police authorities of Whitehall have had reproduced in facsimile and published on the walls of London the letter and postcard sent to the Central News Agency. The language of the card and letter is of a brutal character and is full of Americanisms. The handwriting, which is clear and plain—and disguised in part—is that of a person accustomed to write a round hand like that employed by clerks in offices. The exact colour of the ink and the smears of blood are reproduced in the placard, and information is asked in identification of the handwriting. The postcard bears a tolerably clear imprint of a bloody thumb or finger mark.
October 8. Fears were expressed among the police on Saturday that the night would not pass without some startling occurrence, and the most extraordinary precautions were taken in consequence. The parks are specially patrolled and the police, even in the most outlying districts, are keenly alive to the necessities of the situation. Having efficiently provided for the safeguard of other portions of the large area under his jurisdiction, Sir Charles Warren has sent every available man into the East End district. These together with a large body of City detectives are now on duty and will remain in the streets throughout the night.
October 9. It is stated by a news agency that definite instructions have been issued to the police that in the event of any person being found murdered under circumstances similar to those of the recent crimes, they are not to remove the body of the victim but to send notice immediately to a veterinary surgeon in the South-West District, who holds several trained bloodhounds in readiness to be taken to the spot where the body may be found and to be at once put on the scent.
October 10. Sir Charles Warren witnessed a private trial of bloodhounds in one of the London parks at an early hour yesterday morning. The hounds are the property of Mr. Edwin Brough of Wyndgate, who for years past has devoted himself to bloodhound breeding. On the 4th of October [he] was communicated with by the Metropolitan Police as to the utility of employing bloodhounds to track criminals, and negotiations followed which resulted in that gentleman coming to London on Saturday evening, bringing with him two magnificent animals named Champion Barnaby and Burgho. Mr. Brough tried Barnaby and Burgho in Regent’s Park at seven o’clock on Monday morning. The ground was thickly coated with hoar-frost but they did their work well, successfully tracking for nearly a mile a young man who was given about fifteen minutes’ start. They were again tried in Hyde Park on Monday night. It was of course dark and the dogs were hunted on a leash as would be the case if they were employed in Whitechapel. They were again successful in performing their allotted task, and at seven o’clock yesterday morning a trial took place before Sir Charles Warren. To all appearances the morning was a much better one for scenting purposes than was Monday, though the contrary proved to be the fact. In all, half a dozen runs were made, Sir Charles Warren in two instances acting as the hunted man. The dogs have been purchased by Sir C. Warren for the use of the police in the detection of crime should occasion arise.
October 11.
Letter to the Editor of The Times.
Sir: There is one statement in your otherwise very exact account of the trials of bloodhounds in Hyde Park which I shall be glad to be allowed to correct. My hounds Barnaby and Burgho have not been purchased by Sir Charles Warren for the use of the police. Yours truly.
Edwin Brough.
October 15. In reference to the writing on the walls of a house in Goulston Street, we are requested by Sir Charles Warren to state that his attention having been called to a paragraph in several daily journals m
entioning that in the Yiddish dialect the word “Jews” is spelt “Juwes,” he has made inquiries on the subject and finds that this is not a fact. He learns that the equivalent in the Judeo-German (Yiddish) jargon is “Yidden.”
October 19. Mr. George Lusk of Alderney Road, Globe Road, Mile End, has received several letters purporting to be from the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders, but believing them to have been the production of some practical joker, he had regarded them as of no consequence. It is stated that a letter delivered shortly after five o’clock on Tuesday evening was accompanied by a cardboard box containing what appeared to be a portion of a kidney. The letter was in the following terms: “From Hell. Mr. Lusk. Sir, I send you half the kidne I took from one woman, prasarved it for you, tother piece I fried and ate it; was very nice. I may send you the bloody knif that took it out if you only wate while longer. (Signed) ‘Catch me when you can.’ Mr. Lusk.”
The receiver was at first disposed to think that another hoax had been perpetrated but eventually decided to take the opinion of the Vigilance Committee. They could of course give no opinions as to whether the kidney was human or not, but they decided to take the contents of the cardboard box to a medical man whose surgery is near. The substance was declared by the assistant to be the half of a human kidney which had been divided longitudinally; but in order to remove any reason for doubt he conveyed it to Dr. Openshaw, who is pathological curator of the London Hospital Museum. The doctor examined it and pronounced it to be a portion of a human kidney—a “ginny” kidney, that is to say one that had belonged to a person who had drunk heavily. He was further of opinion that it was the organ of a woman of about forty-five years of age and that it had been taken from the body within the last three weeks. It will be within public recollection that the left kidney was missing from the woman Eddowes, who was murdered and mutilated in Mitre Square.
The Big Book of Jack the Ripper Page 7
