Murder Most Horrid – Part 2 – Murder! Murder!

At around 5am on 7th August 1888, John Reeves was leaving to go to work when he saw a body on the landing of his lodgings in George Yard buildings, upon seeing blood on the body he quickly left to find assistance from the police. It was found that the body, a woman, had been stabbed 39 times, with stab wounds to her lungs, heart, liver, spleen and stomach, breasts and genital area. The Doctor who had been called to examine the victim estimated that she had been dead for about 3-4 hours and that the wounds had been inflicted while the woman was still alive.

On the night of Monday 6th August a 39 year old Prostitute Martha Tabram (also known as Martha Turner or Emma Turner), who resided in 19 George Street, Whitechapel was out drinking with another Prostitute Mary Ann Connelly.  While out the pair became involved with two soldiers one being a private, the other a corporal. It was around 11:45pm when they separated, Martha and the Private leading off to George Yard, near Gunthorpe Street. This was the last time that Martha was seen alive.

Martha’s wounds it is believed were all inflicted by a penknife, however she did have one wound to her chest bone, this one being caused by a stronger blade like a dagger or a sword bayonet. On the night of her murder no noise was heard on the landing of the lodgings.

From the inquest which was held on the 9th of August it was found that at George Yard all lights went out at 11, it would have been pitch black and also that the landing of the building was commonly used by prostitutes and people sleeping rough. So it seems that Martha could have led her murderer or murderers to the place of her death.  Author Paul Roland believes that as there were two weapons used on Martha it would seem that she was killed by two people; two weapons. He also believes that it was the two soldiers that she was with earlier that night who killed her. However it does not make sense for Martha to have been with a client that long. It has already been established, by Doctor Killeen that her estimated time of death was around 2.30AM. It would make sense therefore that after seeing the private at around 11:45 she had more than enough time to go out and find another client (Beadle. 1995. Pg. 13), this client therefore could have been the killer. It was also found that Martha suffered from fits (sometimes known as Rum Fits), if she had suffered from one of these before her death then this could had been the reason for there being no noise/scream being heard.

It is worth a note however that a PC Barrett came across a soldier on his patrol at around 2am on the night of Martha’s murder, down Wentworth Street. PC Barrett asked the soldier what he was doing, to which he replied that he was waiting for a friend who had left with a woman.  Did therefore Mary Connelly get her times wrong when the pair separated maybe being more around 1:45 rather than 11:45? This would be more in line with the time of Martha’s murder at around 2:30. If this is taken into account then Martha’s killer would had been the private she had left with. This would explain why no more sightings of her were seen after Mary had parted from her.

Martha’s death did not cause alarm in Whitechapel at the time. The inquest found that she was killed by person or persons unknown and her documents filed away. Martha was born in 1849; she was only 39 when she was murdered. She was a mother of two sons; she had married their father, Henry S. Tabram in 1869, but like most lower class marriages in those times the marriage fell apart in 1875 due to Martha heavy drinking. Martha had been living with a William Turner, but this again did not last, the last time Turner saw Martha was two days before her murder, he gave her some money, they parted, the next time he was to hear of her was after her death. Martha was one of many women at the time in London, who roamed the streets for money, selling themselves to get just enough for a drink and a nights’ lodgings. It was a viscous cycle one which was to be thrown into the limelight over the next year in Whitechapel.

Murder was not that common in Whitechapel in the 1880s however for prostitutes life was tough, they became sitting ducks for any man with any malice in him (Rule. 2008. P.92), so assaults on the poor women of Whitechapel happened, and sometimes they were fatal. There were two other attacks just before Martha which were a bit worse than usual in Whitechapel, one was on Emma Smith a known prostitute, and the other Ada Wilson who could had been a Prostitute.

On the 3rd April at around 1:30am, Emma Smith, a known prostitute in Whitechapel was attacked down Brick Lane (300 yards from where she lodged at 18 George Street) by a street gang. After beating her one of the men took a blunt instrument and shoved it into her vagina. They left her injured and Emma managed to make it back to her lodgings around 3 hours later, where she was taken to hospital and later died of peritonitis[1]. Before she died she reluctantly gave a statement saying it was a Gang attack[2].  This illustrates how bad and dangerous life was for the lower class women in Whitechapel, more so the women having to degrade themselves as prostitutes. It was after Emma’s attack that the Whitechapel Murders file was opened up by the police.

Not much is known for definite on Emma Smith’s life. It seems she had been married and had left her husband 10 years previously. Another heavy drinker Emma was known to have come home to her lodgings house frequently drunk with bruises and black eyes.

The second attack, worth a mention was on a woman named Ada Wilson. On the 28 of March 1888 at 12:30 am neighbours living at 19 Maidman Street, Bow, heard screams coming from her room. A man ‘About 30, 5’6 tall with a sun burnt face and fair moustache. Wearing a dark coat, light trousers and a wide awake hat,’ (Beadle.1995.P.10-11) was seen running away from the scene. Ada had been stabbed twice in the throat after a man turned up at her room demanding money. Who was this man running away? Was Ada’s story true? Was the attacker a client who Ada was trying to con out of his money but she changed her story so that people would not know she was a prostitute, or was Ada’s attack something else? Ada survived her attack, against the odds, and was discharged from hospital on 27th April.

Five months after Ada was attacked at 4.30 am on the 5th of August 1888 Carman Charles Cross came across a woman lying in the street in Buck’s row with her skirts raised above her waist. She was dead. Charles who was joined by another man, Robert Paul left to find a police man to inform them of their find, they managed to locate PC Jonas Mizen.  While this was happening another man came across the body, this man was PC John Neil; he noticed what the two men had missed. The woman on the floor had blood coming out of her throat.

The following day the body was identified as Mary Ann Nichols who had been lodging at 18 Thrawl Street Whitechapel. Mary was another Unfortunate, a prostitute. Born in 1845, she had married a printer, William Nichols in 1864 and bore him 5 children. Their marriage broke down, this could have been due to numerous reasons the two main ones being Mary’s heavy drinking which started either on or just before 1877, and William leaving Mary Ann  for a while for another woman in 1877. The pair finally parted in 1880, and after finding out Mary Ann’s lifestyle of a prostitute stopped paying her allowance. From here it is noted that Mary was in and out of Lambeth Work house and others, she also resided with another man for a time. She was last seen at 2:30 am on the morning of her death by Ellen Holland, who informed the police that she was staggering around drunk, near Osborn Street. Earlier that night she had been turned away from her lodgings for being drunk, but told the deputy ‘I’ll soon get my doss money, see what a jolly bonnet I got on’. But Mary never returned.

Mary’s throat was not the only thing that had been cut. Upon moving her to the morgue Dr Llewellyn found that her abdomen had been ripped open to her sternum and intestines exposed! How could such a crime could have taken place without anyone seeing or hearing anything? The ‘eastern end of the street was dismally lighted, narrow and tenanted on the south side only. High warehouses dominated the north side. Dark and relatively secluded, it was the regular resort of prostitutes,’ (Sugden.1995.P.53) and the last for Mary. It could be that Mary took her murderer to this spot for the precise reason of its seclusion

The only person to have heard anything that night of note was from a Mrs. Sarah Colwell who resided in Brady Street. She was woken up early hours on August 31st by the sound of a woman running and crying out police, murder and she thought she heard a blow being struck. Was this Mary’s attack?

 No one will know what exactly happened to Mary but two possible scenarios could have been that the murdered approached Mary and demanded money or that Mary willingly went with him. Both scenarios have evidence to back them up. The first one is that the murderer approached Mary in Brady Street demanding money. And Mary panicking tried to run, her murderer caught her and punched her, then forced her into Bucks row with his knife at her throat to ensure silence. Where there he strangled her, cut her throat and did his mutilation. The evidence to back this theory up is that Mary had bruises to the right of her face and another on the left, suggest she been grabbed.[3] ‘A bruise running along the lower part of the jaw on the right side of the face might have been caused by a blow from a fist or by the pressure of a thumb. On the left of the face was a circular bruise. Llewellyn thought that this might have been caused by the pressure of fingers.’ (Sugden.1995.P.40-41). If Mary had lead her killer to Bucks row then why her back was turned the Killer could have grabbed her from behind, strangling her first to reduce the amount of blood flowing from the body. At first it was thought that Mary had been killed elsewhere due to lack of blood around the body. However when she was removed to the mortuary it was found that the blood had soaked into her clothes.

Was the killer seen leaving the scene of the crime at around at 4 am? Patrick Mulshas saw a man walking down Bucks Row in the opposite direction of the murder. He said ‘Watchman, old man, I believe somebody is murdered down the street.’ Would not someone linger around to see the body rather than walking in the opposite direction seemingly unaffected by what had occurred? .After all this was only 20 years since public executions had ceased, and its Slaughterhouses were open to the streets of Whitechapel. Its inhabitants were familiar with seeing gore and blood; it would be unusual for anyone to walk away from an event such as a murder.

Mary was buried on 6th September; her inquest found nothing to locate her murderer and was declared murder by person or persons unknown. She was identified by her father and estranged husband the day after her body was located. The father thought the treatment Mary received from her husband was not fair, even though he was unable to live with Mary due to her drinking habits.

On the 18th September at around 5.30 am Elizabeth Durrell saw a woman talking to a man outside 29 Hanbury Street, the man looked foreign and was heard to say ‘will you?’ the woman’s reply was yes. A little while later Albert Cadosch who lived next door was in his yard and heard woman saying no and 3 minutes later heard something fall. Were these people one and the same? One can only guess, however what is known is that around 6am John Davis found a woman laying in his yard of 29 Hanbury Street her dress over her knees, intestines over right shoulder. This murder took place in the back yard of a building which housed 17 people; no one seemed to have noticed or heard a thing. Hanbury Yard was only accessible through a passage from the front doors which were always left unlocked and it’s was approximately 20 square yards with a locked shed. No. 29 itself was a three story house, a side door which gave access to the rest of the building from the street. It opened into a twenty or twenty five foot passage. A stair case led to the upper floors and at the end of the passage was a back door giving access to the backyard. Most of the houses in the area, like no. 29 were let out in rooms, many of the tenants were market folk, leaving home early in the morning…it thus became the general practice to leave street and back doors unlocked for their convenience…’ (Sugden.1995. P. 83)

The woman who John found was later identified as Annie Chapman. She had been residing in 35 Dorset Street but had no money to stay there on the night of the 17th September so went out to get some. George Baggott, the doctor who examined the body estimated her death at around 5/5.30 am. It was also found that Annie’s stomach wall, womb, upper part of vagina and most bladder missing. ‘…her swollen face and protruding tongue which, coupled with bruising on her neck led him [Phillips the coroner at the morgue] to believe that asphyxia induced by throttling had occurred before the throat was cut.’ (Fido.1987 P.34). Another horrific murder which echoed the previous killing with strangulation and mutilation. Were the police looking for the same killer for both?

The police at this point though they had found a lead, with a piece of Leather apron[4] located in the yard where Annie was killed however this later was found to be a piece of leather which another tenant, John Richardson, had removed from his boot earlier at morning around 4:45. He saw nothing out of the ordinary in the yard at this time either.

At the inquest it was stated that the weapon used to mutilate Annie was a narrow knife of about 6-8 inches. It was also stated at this time the killer may have had anatomical knowledge of the body, due to some of her organs being removed, but it may just have been random in the taking of the organs, the killer just opening up his victim and taking what he found.

Annie’s life was similar to those that had previously been murdered. Born 1841, married in 1869 to John Chapman. She was mother to three children but left her family. Annie received irregular allowances from her husband until his death. It is not known why she left her family, she was an alcoholic but friends of the family state that she was only occasionally drunk. Annie got by by selling some crochet work and other things and occasionally prostituting herself. Annie was buried in a private ceremony by her family on 14th September at Main Park Cemetery.

Elizabeth Stride, originally from Sweden was residing at 32 Flower and Dean Street on the night of 29th September. Elizabeth was a known prostitute in Whitechapel. At 7pm she was seen at the Queen’s Head in Commercial Street, then again at 11 at the Bricklayer’s Arms, with a man in a black morning suit and billycock hat. Forty five minutes later Elizabeth was seen again, this time with a man wearing a short cutaway coat and a sailors hat, heard saying ‘you would say anything but your prayers‘.

PC William who was doing his rounds saw Elizabeth at around 12.35 on the other side of the street to him, they were about to enter Dutfields Yard. Dutfields yard was a dimly lit area which was guarded by two 4 foot 6 inches wide gates which were usually kept closed but unlocked, this was the entrance usually used by visitors. The Yard was about 25 yards long. For the first six yards there was a dead wall on each side which kept the place in total darkness at night. The wall of the club was situated to the right which was about 19 yards in length. Three small dwellings occupied the left hand side. The only light came from the cottage and the upstairs windows of the club. The man seen with Elizabeth was around 28 years of age, 5’7 in height and wearing a dark coat and was a deerstalker hat. He had in his possession a parcel wrapped which was 6 by 8 inches long.

Israel Schwartz of 22 Ellen Street was walking towards Dutfields Yard and saw a man stop and speak to a woman, trying to pull her into the street. She was pushed to the ground and let out three quiet screams. A man halfway down the street was also present and at the same time the unknown attacker screamed out ‘Lipski’ towards the two men.[5] Schwartz did not know if this was an insult towards himself for being a Jew or an instruction to the stranger who Israel believed began to follow him down the street. Schwartz began to run and lost his supposed follower. He also later identified the woman as Elizabeth. The unknown attacker was described by Israel as being of 30 yrs. in age, 5.5 in height, with a Fresh complexion. He had Dark hair and a small moustache; he was dressed in an overcoat with a wide rimmed black hat.

However at the same time James Browis convinced he saw Elizabeth with a stocky built man 5ft 7 in height with a long black overcoat by Fairclough street .Elizabeth was heard to say ‘no not tonight. Maybe some other night. Who was correct, it seems that Elizabeth’s last movement are somewhat unknown as so many people seem to have seen her on the night of her death, as she was found in Dutfields yard is assumed that what Schwarz saw was the actual Elizabeth Stride.

Before the event of which Israel was to witness at Dutfields yard, Morris Eagle had returned to the yard at 12.35 after escorting his lady friend home. He admits at Elizabeth’s inquest that there was no body present at the yard when he returned however as it was so dark could not swear by this. Twenty minutes later he was to be informed that a body had been found in that same yard.

The body was to be found by Louis Diemschütz, who was returning to Dutfields yard with his cart and pony. Upon entering the yard, the pony became unsettled and was very hesitant about entering the yard. Realising something could be up he entered the yard and lighting a match and using his whip to feel around found what seemed to be a body of a woman, her head facing the far end of the yard and feet almost touching the gateway. Believing she was just drunk he went inside the club to get some help. However upon returning with some more people they found she had actually been murdered with her throat cut and blood still dipping from it.

It is believed that Elizabeth’s death was so recent when discovered that the killer may have still been in the yard, and waited in the darkness until Louis went in to get help and then left. Was the killer so close to being caught? Did what Schwartz see earlier the start of Elizabeth’s death?

Elizabeth had no mutilation on her body. In actual fact the way in which Elizabeth had been murdered differed from the previous murders which have recently occurred in Whitechapel. There was no evidence of her having been strangled; her injuries had been caused by a different bladed knife than the previous ones, her injuries seem to have been caused by a short broad knife not, a long narrow bladed knife. Why was her murder different to the others, was it a change in method or was she killed by a different person?

PC Lamb was located nearby and called Doctor Frederick Blackwell to the scene. Blackwell’s opinion that Elizabeth has bled to death comparatively slowly because vessels had been cut only one side of the neck and the artery had not been completely severed. He also stated there was no possibility that she could have uttered any sort of cry after her neck was cut’ (Evans and Rumbelow.2006.P.102). It was also found that Elizabeth had colouring on her chest, was this indication of someone having knelt upon her has her throat was cut?

Another difference in this murder was Dutfields yard was used regularly; it was not a known haunt of prostitutes to take their clients there, therefore why would Elizabeth, if she was murdered by a supposed client have taken him there, to a place where they could have been disturbed? Was she a victim of a robbery? Was she having a row and later killed by her killer who could have been the man Schwartz thought was following him? Was Elizabeth killed by her lover Michael kidney?

Elizabeth’s murderer could had quite easily got away undetected if he was quick, which he was. Upon leaving Dutfields yard all he needed to do was to turn left and entered a dark and narrow thoroughfare known as Betty gardens this would have led him to any of the numerous passageways in Whitechapel.

Elizabeth was finally identified by her nephew PC Walter Stride and she was buried in a pauper’s grave in East London cemetery. Born in 1843, in Sweden. She was officially registered as a prostitute in Sweden in 1865, and taken off November the same year; this is only done if a prostitute gets married or gets employment. While in Sweden Elizabeth was in and out of the hospital being treated for venereal disease and venereal ulcers. She arrived in England in 1866; although how and why she came to London it is not known for sure. She met and married John Stride in 1869 and they opened a coffee shop which did not stay open for very long. The marriage broke down in 1881 and John eventually died in Stepney sick asylum of heart disease in 1884. Elizabeth eventually resided with Michael kidney in 1885 in 38 Dorset Street. Deserting him from time to time until her death, but she did allege that he was violent towards her and ended up residing away from him in September 1888 at 32 Flower and Dean street, she had also been in court numerous times for being drunk and disorderly.

At around the same time that Elizabeth Strides body was found, another prostitute, Catherin Eddowes, who resided with a common law husband, John Kelly, at 55 Flower and Dean Street was being released from a prison cell at Bishopgates police station. She had been arrested earlier that day for being drunk and disorderly. PC George Hutt who was the on duty policeman saw her off into the street. Upon leaving the station Catherine turned left, not right which was the direction of her lodgings, was she going to solicit herself for money? All the pubs had closed so it was not for more drink.

It was earlier in the night, at around midnight that Albert Bachert entered the Three Nuns hotel, situated on Aldgate High Street between St Botolphs[6] and Aldgate Police Station; here he was approached by a man who began to ask him about the women in the area.‘He appeared to be a shabby genteel sort of man, and was dressed in black clothes. He wore a black felt hat and carried a black bag. (Ryder, S. (Ed). Albert Bachert [20/05/2010]

Half an hour later PC Edward Watkins entered Mitre Square and as always he would shine a light all around the square before continuing his beat and would return every 15 minutes. Mitre Square was set in the City of London.  To its north is a small passage leading into St James Place and to its east is another passage leading in the direction of St Botolphs….it is now about 4 meters wide although in the late 20th Century it was little more than a mile wide….it was very dark in the square at night’(Clack and Hutchinson. 2007. P.114-116.), the darkest point being the south west corner, having no street lamps around it.

At around half one not far for Mitre Square three men saw a couple talking as the men were heading towards Aldgate high street. The couple was near Church passage, which leads into Mitre Square. The woman could have been Catherine; she was wearing a black jacket and bonnet and was facing the man with a hand upon his chest. The man was described as being 30 yrs. old 5.7-8 in height and of medium build and a fair complexion. He had a moustache and was wearing a loose fitting pepper and salt coloured jacket and grey cloth cap with a peak. He was described as being a sailor in appearance. The clothes that Catherine was wearing that night were later identified by one of the men as those being worn by the woman they had seen.

Around 1.40 PC James Harvey was on his beat which stopped just before entering Mitre Square but he entered it and found nothing. Four minutes later PC Watkins returned to his beat back to the Square, this time however the Square was not empty. He had found a woman, dead. Watkins called out to Earl and Tongue a nearby warehouse for help. Another woman had been ripped up. Morris, the night watchman ran up the square blowing his whistle for help, while Watkins stayed with the body. As two officers turned up to the scene so do did the first doctor, William Sequira who lived not far from the location. Soon after a London police surgeon, Frederick Gordon Brown accessed the injuries and they are described as follows:

The body was on its back, the head turned to the left shoulder…The abdomen was exposed. Right leg bent at the knee. The throat cut across. The intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder – they were smart over with some feculent matter. A piece of about two feet 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. There was a quantity of clotted blood on the pavement on the left-hand side of the neck round the shoulder and upper part of arm, and fluid blood colours serum which had flowed under the neck to the right shoulder, the pavement sloping in that direction. Body was quite warm. No death stiffening had taken place. She must had been dead most likely within the half hour. We looked for superficial bruises and saw none. (Evans and Skinner. 2001. P.228-9)

Her face had also been deliberately disfigured after her death. The tip of her nose had been hacked off and eyelids cut though, her cheeks with inverted v’s the face been slashed several times down the right to the gum. Her earlobe which had been removed was found in her clothing.  Her kidney and uterus were also missing. There were two abrasions on her cheek which seem to be punch marks. There was a bruise also found on the back of her left hand as though she had raised it to block somebody hitting her[7]. This woman had been viscously and furiously attacked almost beyond recognition.

Meanwhile at around 2.20 am PC Alfred Long walked passed Wentworth Model Dwellings and saw nothing unusual; however at 2.20am at the doorway of a staircase to rooms 108-119 he found half a white apron. It was smothered with blood and faeces. It is believed that the murderer wiped his knife and hands on this apron after killing his victim and to also carry the organs that were removed. Upon inspection it matched to the piece of apron missing from her apron. Just above where the piece of apron was found there was some graffiti written in chalk on the wall. It said:

The Juwes are

The men that

Will not

Be blamed

For nothing

There was much confusion at the time of finding this graffiti and no one knew if it was left by the killer or not. Even the inscription is varied in different reports. There was a debate about who had authority over the graffiti by the two police forces. The murder of Eddowes was made in Mite Square in the jurisdiction of the City of London Police, however the graffiti was found in the jurisdiction of the MET. The city of London Police wanted to photograph the graffiti and use it as some kind of evidence as it was not only found on the night of a supposed double murder but also it was written just above the piece of bloodied apron and knife. It could have been left by the killer.  However due to the words used it was feared by Charles Warren, who arrived on the street that it would cause a stir and rouse more anti-Semitism which was already rife in Whitechapel, and especially since the whole Leather Apron Suspect. He decided it should be removed instantly of the wall. The City of London police tried to compromise and suggested that the top line with the word Juwes being removed. But this was still not enough for Warren, and as it was in his jurisdiction it was washed off the walls before any photograph could be taken.

Today we only have the written version of what it said and even this slightly varies, especially the spelling of Juwes. Whether this was left by the killer it is a riddle which will never be solved. It may not relate to the killings at all and it was all just circumstantial the apron being left there. There are supposed other writings on the wall around the times of the killings, none however which cause so much fuss as this did, to read more on this please see issue 127 2012 of the Ripperologist.

On the morning of 9th November at around 10:45, Thomas Bawyer, assistant to John McCarthy, who owned some lodgings, knocked on the door of a background room on the floor of 26 Dorset Street, Millers Court, to collect rent from a tenant, Mary Kelly. The room was partitioned off from the rest of the little house and could only be entered by the first door of the right-hand side in Millers Court, a pokey yard of 6 dwellings entered through the first archway on the right in Dorset street coming from Commercial street.’(Fido.1987.P.87). upon no answer he peered through a broken window and pulled back the curtain. What he saw was the remains of a woman lying on the bed, hardly identifiable. The body was lying nearly naked on the middle of the bed, face hacked beyond recognition, the breasts were cut off, and blood was on the floor and on the walls. It was a sight that Bowyer would not forget for the rest of his life. Bowyer ran and informed McCarthy of the discovery and after seeing the remains McCarthy ran and informed the police of Commercial Street Police station. After several hours the police get McCarthy to break down the locked door with an axe.

It is believed to be the remains of Mary Jane Kelly that was found as it was her room. Not much is known about Mary’s background and upon investigating her whereabouts on her final day the police have found some conflicting evidence from witnesses’. It is estimated that Mary was born around 1863 originally from Ireland. She met Joseph Barnett in April 1888 and after a few meetings they moved in together to the room at Millers Court. Mary was known to have had a fierce temper when drunk and after a row with Joseph on 30th October 1888, Joseph moved out.

On the night of 8th November, Mary Ann Cox believed she saw Mary and a man walking ahead of her in Dorset Street. The man was described as being shabbily dressed, around 5 feet 5 in height. He wore dark clothes which included a long black coat and a Billy cock hat, and was about his mid-30s in age. He was also described as having a blotchy face, carroty moustache and small side whiskers. Cox states that Mary informed her that she will be doing some singing and took the man into her room at Millers Court. At around 1 am Mary could still be heard singing from her apartment however half an hour later all seemed quiet.

Later at 2am George Hutchinson spoke to Mary down Commercial Street where she asked him for a sixpence. He was unable to provide her with this money and so she left and Hutchinson states she picked up a client around Thrawl Street and took him back to Millers court. For some reason Hutchinson waited outside the entrance to Millers court for 45 minutes, during this time neither Mary nor her client left the room. It has been confirmed by a Sarah Lewis that a man was standing outside Millers Court at the same time as Hutchinson and the police believed his story to be true. Shortly before 4am a cry of Murder was heard near the location of Mary’s room by at least three of the Millers court inhabitants but as this was a common thing no one thought anything of it at the time.

There was also another sighting of Mary at around 8am of the morning of the9th November from a Caroline Maxwell who stated at Mary’s inquest that she spoke to Mary on the corner of Millers court, Mary informing her that she had the horrors of drink. Maxwell also saw Mary again an hour later with a stout man outside the Britannia public house. However Maxwell’s evidence was not taken seriously as it this take place several hours after Mary was stated to have been killed by the coroner. Bur Maxwell had no reason to lie (Beadle.2009.P.200-1) and seemed to be a perfectly sane and sensible woman who knew and had met Kelly on a few previous occasions.

Mary Kelly’s inquest was a fiasco and a sham which lasted virtually only half a day. It had been marred by disagreements between Coroner and Jury, and no effort had been made to establish many of the facts required by law.’ (Tully.1997.P.268). The police were still no closer to finding out who was the killer or killers behind these horrific murders.

This series of murders on the prostitutes of Whitechapel seemed to cease after this last killing of Mary Kelly. The killer, whoever they were and for whatever reason did not kill any more women in this horrific way, or so it seemed. As previously mentioned there were some murders before Mary Ann Nichols which could have been attributed to our killer, it is the same after Mary Kelly, but these murders were not as horrific as the previous 5 had been.

Rose Mylett was found dead in Clarks Yard in Poplar high street on the early hours of 20th December by a police constable. It seemed at first she has died chocking on her own vomit. However there were marks on her neck which pointed to strangulation and four police surgeons confirmed strangulation by a packing string, she had marks and bruises on her neck, which one of the police surgeons believed to be cause by pressure from the fingers and thumb, the surgeons also stated that Mylett had no alcohol in her system. The mark on her neck faded also and it seems there was no sign of struggle in the yard where she was found. So one theory that Mylett was drunk and chocked to death on her own collar could be plausible, but as there was no alcohol in her system how could it be explained how she managed to die of some form of strangulation accidental or not? Of course medical conditions were not well known of today as they were back then and there could be another explanation of Myletts death. Of course she could have actually been murdered and through fear of another murder by Jack the Ripper was too much to bear and the police along with the surgeons decided to go with accidental death.

On the night of her death Mylett was seen at around 7:55 by Charles Ptolemy with a sailor, who it seems was propositioning her. Hours later around 2:30 she was seen again, this time down commercial road with two sailors, the witness was an Alice Graves, who stated that Mylett seemed to be drunk.

There were two other killings in the Whitechapel area a little while after these killings, they may not have been committed by the same killer as those already listed, in what was called the Autumn of Terror. One was Alice McKenzie, the other Frances Coles. McKenzie, who was an occasional prostitute, was found dead in Castle Alley in the early hours of 17th July 1889. She had been stabbed twice in the throat with numerous other wounds on her person, one being along her breasts. Coles was a 25 year old attractive prostitute who was found with her throat cut on February 14th 1891. Her body was found in Swallow Gardens, a very dark alleyway. When Coles was found she was still alive but died from her wounds on the way to hospital. A suspect, Thomas Sadler was arrested but soon released after giving a solid alibi around the time of the killing. Sadler had been spending time with Coles and had spent the previous night with her. The police also hoped that he was Jack the Ripper but upon further investigation it was found that Sadler was out of the country from April 1888 to October.

After the murder of Mary Kelly the amateur vigilantes and even the police force began to scale down their watches. However the main reasons for this was the long and tiresome hours and a big one for the police was finance. It was costing a lot to keep the high police presence in Whitechapel and gradually numbers decreased. As soon as McKenzie’s body was found the police numbers were increased again only to decrease as no more murders similar to that of Jack the Ripper were committed. Finally the police presence in Whitechapel was back to its normal numbers to that before the Autumn of Terror. The file of Jack the Ripper was never officially closed and even though suspects were still arrested none were ever officially charge and found guilty of the murders of at least 4 women in Whitechapel by the killer labelled Jack the Ripper.

[1] Peritonitis is inflammation of the peritoneum due to a bacterial or fungal infection.

[3] Beadle (1995) page 20.

[4]  The finding of the piece of leather led to a mass search from the police and public to locate a man known in the area as Leather Apron, a man who threatened prostitutes. This man tuned out to be a John Pizer, who was innocent of the murders which had taken place. Still the press made a massive issue of the murderer giving him the name for a time of ‘Leather Apron’

[5] In June 1887 Israel Lipski poured poison down a fellow lodger’s throat. He was hung. This causing more anti-Semitism in London. The term Lipski by 1888 was a term of abuse towards the Jews.

[6]St Botolphs was a church where prostitutes were able to go after being given Amnesty there by Whitechapel police, providing they kept moving.

[7]Beadle. 1995. Page 59

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s