Details of Chapman's Murder and Inquest

THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS.

Two arrests were made yesterday, but it is very doubtful whether the murderer is in the hands of the police. The members of the Criminal Investigation Department are assisting the divisional police at the East-end in their endeavours to elucidate the mystery in which these crimes are involved. Yesterday morning Detective Sergeant Thicke, of the H Division, who has been indefatigable in his inquiries respecting the murder of Annie Chapman at 29, Hanbury Street, Spitalfields, on Saturday morning, succeeded in capturing a man whom he believed to be "Leather Apron." It will be recollected that this person obtained an evil notoriety during the inquiries respecting this and the recent murders committed in Whitechapel, owing to the startling reports that had been freely circulated by many of the women living in the district as to outrages alleged to have been committed by him. Sergeant Thicke, who has had much experience of the thieves and their haunts in this portion of the metropolis, has, since he has been engaged in the present inquiry, been repeatedly assured by some of the most well-known characters of their abhorrence of the fiendishness of the crime, and they have further stated that if they could only lay hands on the murderer they would hand him over to justice. These and other circumstances convinced the officer and those associated with him that the deed was in no way traceable to any of the regular thieves or desperadoes at the East-end.
At the same time a sharp look-out was kept on the common lodginghouses, not only in this district, but in other portions of the metropolis. Several persons bearing a resemblance to the description of the person in question have been arrested, but, being able to render a satisfactory account of themselves, were allowed to go away. Shortly after 8 o'clock yesterday morning Sergeant Thicke, accompanied by two or three other officers, proceeded to 22, Mulberry Street and knocked at the door. It was opened by a Polish Jew named Pizer, supposed to be "Leather Apron." Thicke at once took hold of the man, saying, "You are just the man I want." He then charged Pizer with being concerned in the murder of the woman Chapman, and to this he made no reply. The accused man, who is a boot finisher by trade, was then handed over to other officers and the house was searched. Thicke took possession of five sharp long-bladed knives -- which, however, are used by men in Pizer's trade -- and also several old hats. With reference to the latter, several women who stated they were acquainted with the prisoner, alleged he has been in the habit of wearing different hats.

Pizer, who is about 33, was then quietly removed to the Leman Street Police station, his friends protesting that he knew nothing of the affair, that he had not been out of the house since Thursday night, and is of a very delicate constitution. The friends of the man were subjected to a close questioning by the police. It was still uncertain, late last night, whether this man remained in custody or had been liberated. He strongly denies that he is known by the name of "Leather Apron."
The following official notice has been circulated throughout the metropolitan police district and all police stations throughout the country: -

"Description of a man who entered a passage of the house at which the murder was committed of a prostitute at 2 a.m. on the 8th. - Age 37; height, 5ft. 7in., rather dark beard and moustache. Dress-shirt, dark vest and trousers, black scarf, and black felt hat. Spoke with a foreign accent."

Great excitement was caused in the neighbourhood of Commercial Street Police station during the afternoon on account of arrival from Gravesend of a suspect whose appearance resembled in some respects that of "Leather Apron." This man, whose name is William Henry Pigott, was taken into custody on Sunday night at the Pope's Head publichouse, Gravesend.
Attention was first attracted to Pigott because he had some bloodstains on his clothes. Superintendent Berry, the chief of the local police, was communicated with, and a sergeant was sent to the Pope's Head to investigate the case. On approaching the man, who seemed in a somewhat dazed condition, the sergeant saw that one of his hands bore several recently-made wounds.
Being interrogated as to the cause of this Pigott made a somewhat rambling statement to the effect that while going down Brick Lane, Whitechapel, at half-past 4 on Saturday morning he saw a woman fall in a fit. He stooped to pick her up, and she bit his hand. Exasperated at this he struck her, but seeing two policemen coming up he then ran away. The sergeant, deeming the explanation unsatisfactory, took Pigott to the police-station, where his clothing was carefully examined by Dr. Whitcombe, the divisional surgeon.
The result of the scrutiny was an announcement that two shirts which Pigott carried in a bundle were stained with blood, and also that blood appeared to have been recently wiped off his boots. After the usual caution the prisoner made a further statement to the effect that the woman who bit him was in the street at the back of a lodging-house when seized with the fit. He added that he slept at a lodging-house in Osborne Street on Thursday night, but on Friday was walking the streets of Whitechapel all night. He tramped from London to Gravesend on Saturday. He gave his age as 52, and stated he was a native of Gravesend, his father having some years ago had a position there in connexion with the Royal Liver Society.
Subsequently Pigott told the police that he had been keeping several publichouses in London. As the prisoner's description tallied in some respects with that furnished by headquarters of the man wanted, Superintendent Berry decided to detain him until the morning. In response to a telegram apprising him of the arrest Inspector Abberline proceeded to Gravesend yesterday morning, and after hearing the circumstances of the case decided to bring the prisoner at once to Whitechapel, so that he could be confronted with the women who had furnished the description of "Leather Apron."
A large crowd had gathered at Gravesend railway station to witness the departure of the detective and his prisoner, but his arrival at London-bridge was almost unnoticed, the only persons apprised beforehand of the journey being the police, a small party of whom in plain clothes were in attendance. Inspector Abberline and Pigott went off in a four-wheeled cab to Commercial Street where from early morning groups of idlers had hung about in anticipation of an arrest.
The news of Pigott's arrival, which took place at 12:48, at once spread, and in a few seconds the police station was surrounded by an excited crowd anxious to get a glimpse of the supposed murderer. Finding that no opportunity was likely to occur of seeing the prisoner, the mob after a time melted away, but the police had trouble for some hours in keeping the thoroughfare free for traffic. Pigott arrived at Commercial Street in much the same condition as he was when taken into custody. He wore no vest, had on a battered felt hat, and appeared to be in a state of high nervous excitement.
Mrs. Fiddymont, who is responsible for the statement respecting a man resembling "Leather Apron" being at the Prince Albert publichouse on Saturday, was sent for, as were also other witnesses likely to be able to identify the prisoner; but after a very brief scrutiny it was the unanimous opinion that Pigott was not "Leather Apron." Nevertheless, looking to his condition of mind and body, it was decided to detain him until he could give a somewhat satisfactory explanation of himself and his movements. After an interval of a couple of hours, the man's manner becoming more strange and his speech more incoherent, the divisional surgeon was called in, and he gave it as his opinion that the prisoner's mind was unhinged. A medical certificate to this effect was made out, and Pigott will, for the present, remain in custody.
Intelligent observers who have visited the locality express the upmost astonishment that the murderer could have reached a hiding place after committing such a crime. He must have left the yard in Hanbury Street reeking with blood, and yet, if the theory that the murder took place between 5 and 6 be accepted, he must have walked in almost broad daylight along streets comparatively well frequented, even at that early hour, without his startling appearance attracting the slightest attention.
Consideration of this point has led many to the conclusion that the murderer came not from the wretched class from which the inmates of common lodging-houses are drawn. More probably, it is argued, he is a man lodging in a comparatively decent house in the district, to which he would be able to retire quickly, and in which, once it was reached, he would be able at his leisure to remove from his person all traces of his hideous crime. It is at any rate practically certain that the murderer would not have ventured to return to a common lodging-house smeared with blood as he must have been. The police are therefore exhorted not to confine their investigations, as they are accused of doing, to common lodging-houses and other resorts of the criminal and outcast, but to extend their inquiries to the class of householders, exceedingly numerous in the East-end of London, who are in the habit of letting furnished lodgings without particular inquiry into the character or antecedents of those who apply for them.
A visit to Dorset Street, which runs parallel with Spitalfields Market from Commercial Street, reveals the fact that nearly every house in the street is a common lodging-house, in which wretched human beings are, at certain seasons of the year, crammed from cellar to roof. The streets leading into Dorset Street, where the woman was last seen alive, are also occupied by lodging-houses. In Hanbury-street, Deal Street, Great Garden Street, and several smaller thoroughfares houses of the same sort are located and are frequented by the poorest class of the "casual" community.
Some of these places have been searched and inquiries made as to their recent inhabitants, but so far nothing has been discovered to lead to the supposition that any regular frequenter of these establishments committed the murder. The woman Chapman was known by appearance to the policemen on the night beats in the neighbourhood, but none of those who were on duty between 12 and 6 on Saturday morning recollect having seen her. It is ascertained that several men left their lodgings after midnight with the expressed intention of returning who have not returned. Some men went to their lodgings after 3 o'clock, and left again before 6 in the morning, which is not an unfrequent occurrence in those houses.
None of the deputies or watchmen at the houses have any memory of any person stained with blood entering their premises, but at that hour of the morning little or no notice is taken of persons inquiring for beds. They are simply asked for the money, and shown up dark stairways with a bad light to their rooms. When they leave early, they are seldom noticed in their egress. It is then considered quite probable that the murderer may have found a refuge for a few hours in one of these places, and even washed away the signs of his guilt. The men in these houses use a common washing place, and water once used is thrown down the sink by the lodger using it. All this might happen in a common lodging-house in the early morning without the bloodstained murderer being noticed particularly. The conviction is growing even, that taking for granted that one man committed all the recent murders of women in the Whitechapel district, he might in this fashion, by changing his common lodging-house, evade detection for a considerable time. Whoever the man may be -- if the same person committed the last three murders -- he must on each occasion have been bespattered profusely with bloodstains. He could not well get rid of them in any ordinary dwelling-house or public place. Therefore it is supposed he must have done so in the lodging-houses.
The murderer must have known the neighbourhood, which is provided with no fewer than four police stations, and is well watched nightly, on account of the character of many of the inhabitants. On Saturday morning, between half past 4 o'clock and 6, several carts must have passed through Hanbury-street, and at 5 o'clock, on the opening of the Spitalfields Market, the end of which the murder occurred was blocked with market vehicles, and the market attendants were busy regulating the traffic. In the midst of the bustle it is admitted that two persons might have passed through the hall of 29, Hanbury-street, and in consequence of the noise of passing vehicles, any slight altercation might have occurred without being overheard. Although at first, from the contiguity of Buck's Row to a slaughter-house and the neighbourhood of the Aldgate Shambles, suspicion fell on the butchers employed in those establishments during the night, the suspicion is disappearing, inasmuch as the names and addresses and the movements of all those engaged in the occupation are known.
A meeting of the chief local tradesmen was held yesterday, at which an influential committee was appointed, consisting of 16 well-known gentlemen, with Mr. J. Aarons as the secretary. The committee issued last evening a notice stating that they will give a substantial reward for the capture of the murderer or for information leading thereto. The movement has been warmly taken up by the inhabitants, and it is thought certain that a large sum will be subscribed within the next few days.
The proposal to form district vigilance committees also meets with great popular favour and is assuming practical form. Meetings were held at the various working men's clubs and other organizations, political and social, in the districts, at most of which the proposed scheme was heartily approved.
From inquiries which have been made in Windsor, it seems that the deceased was the widow of a coachman in service at Clewer. While the deceased lived at Clewer she was in custody for drunkenness, but had not been charged before the magistrates.

Source: The London Times, September 11, 1888

NOTES OF LATEST NEWS.

THE EAST-END HORROR.

It would be necessary to go back to the cold-blooded atrocities and remorseless cruelties of Bishop and Williams, in 1831, to find a parallel to the thrill of horror which went through the metropolis yesterday, when it became known that a fourth woman had been found murdered and shockingly mutilated in Whitechapel. Like the three previous victims, the poor creature, who is believed to be named Chapman, though passing as Annie Sievy, belonged to the unfortunate class; and her remains were found in a place open to the public, thus presenting marked similarity to the previous cases. The tragedy, however, is surrounded by circumstances of increasing terror on account of the fiendish barbarity displayed. Murder in any case is a terrible thing, but the details of the latest fearful crime at the East-end of London are ghastly enough to make the strongest shudder. There is no wonder that the whole neighbourhood is intensely excited, and that something very like a panic has seized the women of the district who are compelled to be abroad at night or in the early hours of the morning. Although nothing has been discovered to throw a light upon the startling succession of mysterious murders, it may be trusted that, now the police have been thoroughly roused, the monster, or monsters, will speedily be hunted down. The foul nature of the crimes seems to point to the acts of a madman, but the amount of cunning with which they have been perpetrated necessarily causes them to be regarded with unparalleled terror.

ANOTHER MURDER IN WHITECHAPEL

A FOURTH VICTIM OF AN UNKNOWN ASSASSIN.
FIENDISH MUTILATION OF A WOMAN'S BODY.

A fourth murder, of a most brutal nature, has been committed in Whitechapel. At a spot only a very few hundred yards from where the mangled body of the poor woman Nicholls was found just a week ago, the body of another woman, mutilated and horribly disfigured, was found at half-past five yesterday morning. She was lying in the back yard of 29, Hanbury-street, Spitalfields, a house occupied by Mr. Richardson, a packing-case maker. As late as five o'clock yesterday morning it is said the woman was drinking in a public-house near at hand called the Three Bells. Near the body was discovered a rough piece of iron sharpened like a knife. The wounds upon the poor woman were more fearful than those found upon the body of the woman Nicholls, who was buried on Thursday. The throat was cut in a most horrible manner and the stomach terribly mutilated.
The first discovery of the body was made by John Davis, living on the top floor of 29, Hanbury-street, in the yard of which the body was found. Mr. Davis was crossing the yard between five and six when he saw a horrible-looking mass lying in the corner, partly concealed by the steps. He instantly made for the station and notified the police, without touching the body. Meantime Mrs. Richardson, an old lady sleeping on the first floor front, was aroused by her grandson, Charles Cooksley, who looked out of one of the back windows and screamed that there was a dead body in the corner.
Mrs. Richardson's description makes this murder even more horrible than any of its predecessors. The victim was lying on her back with her legs outstretched. Her throat was cut from ear to ear. Her clothes were pushed up above her waist and her legs bare. The abdomen was exposed, the woman having been ripped up from groin to breast-bone as before. Not only this, but the viscera had been pulled out and scattered in all directions, the heart and liver being placed behind her head, and the remainder along her side. No more horrible sight every met a human eye, for she was covered with blood, and lying in a pool of it.
Mr. and Mr. Davis occupy the upper story of 29, Hanbury-street, the house consisting of two storeys. When Mr. Davis found the woman she was lying on her back close up to the flight of steps leading into the yard. The throat was cut open in a fearful manner - so deep, in fact, that the murderer, evidently thinking that he had severed the head from the body, tied a handkerchief round it so as to keep it on. It was also found that the body had been ripped open and disembowelled, the heart and abdominal viscera lying by the side. The fiendish work was completed by the murderer tying a portion of the entrails round the victim's neck. There was no blood on the clothes. Hanbury-street is a long street which runs from Baker's-row to Commercial-street. It consists partly of shops and partly of private houses. In the house in question, in the front room, on the ground floor, Mr. Harderman carries on the business of a seller of catsmeat. At the back of the premises are those of Mr. Richardson, who is a packing-case maker. The other occupants of the house are lodgers. One of the lodgers, named Robert Thompson, who is a carman, went out of the house at half-past three in the morning, but heard no noise. Two girls, who also live in the house, were talking in the passage until half-past 12 with young men, and it is believed that they were the last occupants of the house to retire to rest. It seems that the crime was committed soon after five. At that hour the woman and the man, who in all probability was her murderer, were seen drinking together in the Bells, Brick-lane. But though the murder was committed at this late hour, the murderer - acting, as in the other case, silently and stealthily - managed to make his escape.
On the wall near where the body was found there was, according to one reporter, subsequently discovered written in chalk: -

"FIVE: 15 MORE, AND THEN I GIVE MYSELF UP."

On the place being subsequently visited by our representative this was not to be seen.

THE BODY IDENTIFIED.

The woman's name, the police found, is Annie Sievy, and her age is about 45. She is five feet high, has fair brown wavy hair, blue eyes, and, like Mary Ann Nicholls, has two teeth missing. One peculiarity of her features is a large, flat kind of nose. Her clothing was old and dirty, and nothing was found in her pockets except part of an envelope bearing the seal of the Sussex regiment. For the last nine months she had been sleeping at a lodging-house, 35, Dorset-street, Spitalfields, and she was there as recently as two o'clock yesterday morning eating some potatoes. She had not, however, the money to pay for her bed, and at two o'clock she left with the remark to the keeper of the place, "I'll soon be back again; I'll soon get the money for my doss," almost the very words Mary Ann Nicholls used to the companion she met in Whitechapel-road, at half-past two on the morning of her death. A companion identified her soon after she had been taken to the mortuary as "Dark Annie," and as she came from the mortuary gate, bitterly crying, said between her tears, "I knowed her; I kissed her poor cold face."
The large flat kind of nose of the deceased is so striking a peculiarity that the police hope to be able to fully trace the movements of the deceased by means of it. The clothing of the dead woman, like that of most of her class who ply their trade in this quarter of London, was old and dirty. In the dress of the dead woman two farthings were found, so brightly polished as to lead to the belief that they were intended to be passed as half-sovereigns, and it is probable that they were given to her by the murderer as an inducement for her to accompany him.

THE DEAD WOMAN'S CAREER.

Late yesterday, after the deceased had been formally identified as Annie Sievy, a witness came forward and stated that her real name was Annie Chapman. She came from Windsor, and had friends residing at Vauxhall. She had been married, her husband being an army pensioner, who had allowed her 10s. a week, but he died a twelvemonth ago; and, the pension ceasing, she became one of the hideous women infesting Whitechapel. She lived for a time with a man named Sievy, and took his name. According to another authority she used to live with a sieve maker in Dorset-street, and was known to her acquaintances as "Annie Sievy," a nickname derived from her paramour's trade.

SUPPOSED CLUE TO THE MURDERER.

Mrs. Fiddymont, wife of the proprietor of the Prince Albert public-house, better known as the "Clean House," at the corner of Brushfield and Stewart streets, half a mile from the scene of the murder, states that at seven o'clock yesterday morning she was standing in the bar talking with another woman, a friend, in the first compartment. Suddenly came into the middle compartment a man whose rough appearance frightened her. He had a brown stiff hat, a dark coat and no waistcoat. He came in with his hat down over his eyes, and with his face partly concealed, asked for half a pint of four'ale. She drew the ale, and meanwhile looked at him through the mirror at the back of the bar. As soon as he saw the woman in the other compartment watching him he turned his back, and got the partition between himself and her. The thing that struck Mrs. Fiddymont particularly was the fact that there were blood spots on the back of his right hand. This, taken in connection with his appearance, caused her uneasiness. She also noticed that his shirt was torn. As soon as he had drunk the ale, which he swallowed at a gulp, he went out. Her friend went out also to watch the man.
Her friend is Mrs. Mary Chappell, who lives at 28 Stewart-street, near by. Her story corroborates Mrs. Fiddymont's. When the man came in the expression of his eyes caught her attention, his look was so startling and terrifying. It frightened Mrs. Fiddymont so that she requested her to stay. He wore a light blue check shirt, which was torn badly, into rags in fact, on the right shoulder. There was a narrow streak of blood under his right ear, parallel with the edge of his shirt. There was also dried blood between the fingers of his hand. When he went out she slipped out of the other door, and watched him as he went towards Bishopsgate-street. She called Joseph Taylor's attention to him, and Joseph Taylor followed him.
Joseph Taylor is a builder at 22, Stewart-street. He states that as soon as his attention was attracted to the man he followed him. He walked rapidly, and came alongside him, but did not speak to him. The man was rather thin, about 5ft. 8in. high, and apparently between 40 and 50 years of age. He had a shabby genteel look, pepper and salt trousers which fitted badly, and dark coat. When Taylor came alongside him the man glanced at him, and Taylor's description of the look was, "His eyes were as wild as a hawk's." Taylor is a reliable man, well known throughout the neighbourhood.
The man walked, he says, holding his coat together at the top. He had a nervous and frightened way about him. He wore a ginger-coloured moustache and had short sandy hair. Taylor ceased to follow him, but watched him as far as "Dirty Dick's," in Halfmoon-street, where he became lost to view.

THEORY OF THE TRAGEDY.

One correspondent says: - It was evident at a glance that the murder had been done where the body lay. The enormous quantity of blood and the splash of the fence, coupled with the total absence of stains elsewhere, made this clear. It was also clear that the man had decoyed the poor woman into the yard, and murdered her as she lay where she was found. The passage through the house by which the yard was reached is 25ft. long and 3ft. wide. Its floor is bare, and nobody can pass along it without making some noise. The murderer and his victim failed to awaken anybody, however, though people were sleeping only a few feet away. Both front and back door are open all night, and there was no difficulty in reaching the yard. There was a story that a bloody knife had been found in the yard, but this was not true. The only unusual thing about the yard except the dead woman was the fact that the rusty padlock on the door of the shed had been broken. Not a sound seems to have been made by the woman when attacked. Mrs. Bell, an old lady who lives next door, sleeps by an open window, not 20ft. from the spot, and is certain that no noise was made, as she sleeps very lightly. The probability is that the woman by five o'clock was stupidly drunk, as she was well on when Donovan, the deputy, last saw her. In this case she could have been easily kept silent until she was unable from loss of blood to speak.

IMPORTANT STATEMENTS.

The man Davis, who discovered the body, was interviewed. He is a carman, employed by Mr. Wisdom, a fruiterer and greengrocer in Leadenhall-market. His story is that shortly before six a.m. he had occasion to go into the back, and as soon as he opened the door he saw the woman's body lying on the ground. The face was deluged with blood to such an extent that he did not notice the wound in the throat. Her petticoats were turned up, and the lower portion of her body was quite visible. Davis, who is an old and somewhat feeble-looking man, says he only stayed to notice that her bowels were protruding, and that then he dashed straight away to the police-station - about a couple of hundred yards from the scene of the murder - and there gave information to the police. He did not even wait to rouse any of the other inmates of the house, who only became acquainted with the fact that the ghastly tragedy had been committed after the arrival of the police.
Mrs. Elizabeth Bell, of 31, Hanbury-street, stated: - "I have been living here some time, and I wish I had never come. Such a terrible sight is enough to shock any woman with the hardest heart. The house is open all night next door, and this poor creature was taken into the yard, and butchered, no doubt, by the same man who committed the others. We were all roused at six o'clock this morning by Adam Osborne calling out, "For God's sake get up; here's a woman murdered." We all got up and huddled on our clothes, and on going into the yard saw the poor creature lying by the steps in the next yard, with her clothes torn and her body gashed in a dreadful manner. The people in the house next door were all asleep, I believe, and knew nothing of the matter until the police came and roused them up. I cannot be sure if anybody in the house knew of the murder, or took part in it, but I believe not. The passage is open all night, and anyone can get in, and no doubt that is what happened. All the other tenants of the house gave the same opinion, and those in the house of Mr. Richardson, at 29, where the murder occurred, state that they heard no cries of "Murder" or "Help," nor anything unusual during the night.
Mr. E. Waldron, the proprietor of the Three Bells, standing on the corner of Spitalfields market, and which opens early for the convenience of those who bring their goods from the country, was sought out, and one of his assistants was able to state: - "A woman did call in here about five o'clock. She was very poorly dressed, having no bodice to her skirt. She was middle-aged. She just had something to drink, when a man called for her. He just popped his head in the door and retired immediately afterwards. He had on a little skull cap, and was, as far as I could see, without a coat. But he gave me no opportunity of seeing him. I think, however, I should know the face again, and I think I would also know the woman. The description of the woman corresponds to a certain extent, especially with regard to age, hair, and clothing, with that of the victim of today."
James Wiltshire and Alfred Henry Gunthorpe, two milkmen, in the employ of the Dairy Supply company, Museum-street, Bloomsbury, were driving in separate carts through Hanbury-street early yesterday morning. Wiltshire passed that thoroughfare at 20 minutes to six. He says, "There was no bother then, and no sign that a murder had been committed. There were people about, but I did not notice anyone in particular." Alfred Henry Gunthorpe passed through part of Hanbury-street in Brick-lane, shortly after, and he saw nothing of a suspicious character.
John Thimbleby, coppersmith in Hanbury's brewery, went to the Commercial-street-station at one o'clock yesterday to say that at six o'clock that morning a man attracted his particular attention before he heard of the murder. He was hurrying from Hanbury-street, below where the murder took place, into Brick-lane. He was walking, almost running, and had a peculiar gait, his knees not bending when he walked. (This is a peculiarity of "Leather Apron's" gait). He was dressed in a dark stiff hat and cutaway coat, reaching to his knees. His face was clean shaven, and he seemed about 30 years old. Thimbleby says he can identify him.
A representative went to the Bell, in Brick-lane, where, as gossip goes, "Dark Annie" was seen with the man supposed to be her murderer. The barmaid said she opened the place at five o'clock, as is customary on a Saturday morning, as Spitalfields market is in the near vicinity. She was too busy almost to notice whom she served. She might have served the woman; indeed she had been told by those who knew her that she had, but she had no recollection of it, and certainly could not say whether the unfortunate creature was accompanied by a man.
Davis, the lodger, who discovered the body, immediately communicated with the police at Commercial-street station, and Inspector Chandler and several constables arrived on the scene in a short time, when they found the woman in the condition described. An excited crowd gathered in front of Mrs. Richardson's house, and also around the mortuary in Old Montagu-street, to which place the body was quickly removed. Several persons who were lodging in the house, and who were seen in the vicinity when the body was found, were taken to the Commercial-street station and closely examined, especially the women last with the deceased.
Timothy Donovan, deputy at the lodging-house, 35, Dorset-street, interviewed by a reporter, said the woman came to the place at between half-past one and a quarter to two yesterday morning the worse for drink - in fact, she as "very drunk." She went downstairs to the common kitchen, and when the deputy sent down and asked for the money for her bed, she said she not sufficient. She came upstairs and said, "Jim, I've been in the infirmary. I'm going out. I shan't be long." John Edwards, the watchman, went out after her and saw her go in the direction of Brushfield. Before she went to the lodging-house on Friday night she had not been seen there since the Sunday before. Last Saturday afternoon she came to the lodging-house with a man about 5ft. 6in., with a dark moustache and short beard, and dressed in the clothes of a labouring man. "He was not "Leather Apron," the deputy said.
"Do you known him?" asked the reporter. "Yes, I ought to," was the answer; "I chucked him down the stairs; he tried to murder a woman here." Coming back to the new horror, Donovan said the man who came to the place with the woman Sievy on Saturday had come with her to the lodging-house every Saturday for the last six weeks. He used to stop with her at the lodging-house till Monday evening. The woman had spoken about him, and said he was a pensioner.
Frederick Stevens, a young man, lodging at 35, Dorset-street, stated that deceased did not leave the place until one o'clock. He had drunk a pint of beer with her at half-past 12. She was not very well, having been in the casual ward of the Whitechapel infirmary from Wednesday night till Friday morning. Her injuries were due to a quarrel on Monday with another woman, who kicked her in the breast, making a painful wound.
Frederick Simpson, staying at the same lodging-house, said he had known the woman well for two years. She mentioned the fact that she had a son - a little boy - in a school at WIndsor, and a daughter 14 years old travelling with some performing troupe in France. She has relatives at Vauxhall, where she went that night, "to get some money," as she told the other lodgers at "Dorset-chambers." They gave me 5d.," she said.
On visiting the house next door to the tragedy, 27, our representative saw Mr. Albert Cadosen, a carpenter, who resides there and works in Shoe-lane, Fleet-street. He says: I was not very well in the night and I went out into the back yard about 25 minutes past five. It was just getting daylight, and as I passed to the back of the yard I heard a sound as of two people up in the corner of the next yard. On coming back I heard some words which I did not catch, but I heard a woman say "No." Then I heard a kind of scuffle going on, and someone seemed to fall heavily on to the ground against the wooden partition which divided the yard, at the spot where the body was afterwards found. As I thought it was some of the people belonging to the house, I passed into my own room, and took no further notice.

ATTEMPT TO LYNCH TWO MEN.


Two men passing through Brick-lane yesterday morning were denounced by the crowd as the murderers, and were attacked. They called upon the police for protection, and were taken to Bethnal-green and there treated as prisoners. As, however, they made clear statements of their movements, which could not be gainsaid, they were allowed to go. This gave rise to an excited rumour of two arrests.

WHAT SCOTLAND YARD SAYS.

The police at Scotland-yard, on being sought out, declared that the statement that a leather apron was found by the side of the murdered woman was an error. The body was found in the yard weltering in blood. The injuries were of too horrible a character to admit of particular description. Colonel Mounsell, chief constable of the district, visited the locality of the murder early in the forenoon, and subsequently inspected the body of the victim in the presence of the local police-officers and the divisional surgeon. The only foundation for the story of the leather apron is that an apron of this character was hanging on a nail in the passage leading to the yard. The landlady of the house has two sons, who are employed as cabinet-makers, and use heavy leathern aprons in the exercise of their trade. The Scotland-yard authorities state that the circumstances in connection with the murder justify the police in believing that it has been committed by the same person or persons who murdered Mary Ann Nicholls. The matter, however, is surrounded with mystery, and the police have had but little time to make inquiries. The police at Commercial-street station are in charge of the inquiry, but a large body of detectives are scouring the district.

THE FOUR TRAGEDIES.

The first of the four recent murders in Whitechapel was that of a woman unidentified, who was found killed by having a stick or iron instrument thrust into her body. The crime passed off very quietly. It was put down as a drunken freak of some of the nameless ruffians who swarm about Whitechapel. The second was in Osborne-street. The scene was near the first murder, a woman was found stabbed in 36 places, lying outside George's-buildings. The impression made by this affair soon died away. The crime was a horrible one, but not a witness was called at the inquest who could throw a light on the matter. The excitement died from sheer lack of fact to support any theory. The third was the Buck's-row murder, which in a week has been followed by the latest barbarity in Hanbury-street.

WHY NOT TRY BLOODHOUNDS?

"A Whitechapel Workman" writes: - Why do the police not employ bloodhounds to trace the murderer? He could not commit such a crime without being covered with the blood of his victim, and this would help the dogs to trace him. Bloodhounds were used to trace out Fish, the murderer, some years ago with success; but that, of course, was before our police force was presided over by Sir Charles Warren.

ANOTHER WOMAN STABBED.

At five minutes after eleven o'clock yesterday morning a most exciting incident took place. A man suddenly attacked a woman in Spitalfields-market while she was passing through. After felling her to the ground with a blow, he began kicking her, and pulled out a knife. Some women who had collected, having the terrible tragedy that brought them there still fresh in their minds, on seeing the knife, raised such piercing screams of "Murder!" so that they reached the enormous crowds in Hanbury-street. There was at once a rush for Commercial-street, where the markets are situated, as it was declared by some that there was another murder, and by others that the murderer had been arrested. Seeing the immense crowd swarming around him, the man who was the cause of the alarm made more furious efforts to reach the woman, from whom he had been separated by some persons, who interfered on her behalf. He, however, threw these on one side, fell upon the woman, knife in hand, and inflicted various stabs on her head, cut her forehead, neck, and fingers before he was again pulled off. When he was again pulled off the woman lay motionless - the immense crowd took up the cry of "Murder!" and the people who were on the streets raised cries of "Lynch him!" At this juncture the police arrived, arrested the man, and after a while had the woman conveyed on a stretcher to the station in Commercial-street, where she was examined by the divisional surgeon. She was found to be suffering from several wounds, but none of them were considered dangerous. She was subsequently removed to the London hospital, where she was detained as an in-patient. Her assailant is described as a blind man, who sells laces in the streets, and whom she led about from place to place. The blind man is said to have an ungovernable temper, and he was seen, whilst the woman was leading him along, to stab her several times in the neck. Blood flowed quickly, and it was at first thought that another terrible murder had been committed. The affair occurred midway between Buck's-row and Hanbury-street.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, September 9, 1888, Page 7

ANOTHER AWFUL MURDER.
THE MYSTERIOUS ASSASSIN AGAIN AT WORK IN LONDON.

LONDON, Sept. 8 - The horribly mutilated body of a woman was found early this morning in the yard attached to a common lodging-house in Spitalfields. The throat was cut from ear to ear, the body was ripped open, the bowels and heart were lying on the ground and a portion of the entrails were tied around the neck. This is the fourth murder of a similar character that has been committed recently in this neighbourhood. All the victims were women of low character. The author of the atrocities remains undiscovered, and the excitement in the immediate vicinity borders upon panic.

Source: The Montreal Daily Witness, Monday September 10, 1888, Page 2

LONDON GOSSIP.
THE SPITALFIELDS' MURDER.

LONDON, Sept. 11 - As yet the Spitalfields' murderer has not been caught and the prospects that he will be are rapidly fading. The detectives are losing their heads completely under the influence of the attack of the newspapers and the ridicule of the populace, and appear to be further from the scent than ever. Not one of the persons arrested on suspicion has been connected with the remotest circumstance that could induce belief that he was even aware that the murders had been committed. The police would have been as thoroughly justified in arresting the Queen herself as the murderer as they were in taking into custody the persons they were compelled to set at liberty for want of evidence. The return to duty of

SIR CHAS. WARREN,

Chief Commissioner of Police, can have no effect, except, possibly, to intensify the muddled state of affairs, and his denial of the reports of his intention to resign renders the capture of the assassin, except by the merest accident, still more hopeless. A number of tradesmen in the East End have issued a circular, offering a reward for the apprehension of the murderer, and this may stimulate some amateur detective to come to the rescue of the professionals, and prevent further exhibition of their inefficiency by running the monster down.

Source: The Montreal Daily Witness, Tuesday September 11, 1888, Page 1

TELEGRAPHIC NEWS.
CABLE.

LONDON GOSSIP.
THE WHITECHAPEL HORROR.

LONDON, Sept. 12 - London is still deeply absorbed in speculation and curiosity over the Whitechapel horror. The strange series of brutal murders that has excited the people from one end of the city to the other is the subject of varied comment and suggestion. Everybody finds fresh editorial mention of the crimes in the newspapers supplemented by numerous letters to editors, containing suggestions pertinent or absurd. The criminal, whoever he may be, remains at large, and the police seem unable to stumble even upon a clue.

A NEW SENSATION

was afforded today in the finding at Pimlico of a woman's arm which had been cast up by the Thames on the embankment. The arm gave the appearance of having been torn from the shoulder, and altogether was a ghastly discovery to make at this inopportune time. Very possibly the arm had been rejected by a medical student and had connection with nothing more tragic than a dissecting table. Londoners, however, are in the humor now to accept the theory of a new tragedy, and this assumption is affirmed by the recent finding at Guildford of a dissevered foot and leg which had evidently been boiled. This Guildford mystery has not been solved, and no explanation of it has yet been offered that is satisfactory. The present excitement over these matters is intense.

Source: The Montreal Daily Witness, Wednesday September 12, 1888, Page 1

A CRANK.

LONDON, Sept. 29 - Fitzgerald, who made a voluntary statement to the police that he was the murderer of Annie Chapman, one of the Whitechapel victims, has been discharged.

Source: The Montreal Daily Witness, Saturday September 29, 1888, Page 1

The Coroner's summing up of the evidence in regard to the latest of the horrible murders in Whitechapel has created a profound sensation. He came to the conclusion that Annie Chapman was murdered by a skilled anatomist, who killed her for the sake of selling a certain part of her body to an American collector. It seems that on the first morning of the publication of details of the murder in the Press, the Coroner received from the sub-curator of the Pathological Museum information that some months ago an American called on him and asked him to procure a number of specimens of the organ that was missing in the murdererd woman. He stated his willingness to give 20 pounds for each, and explained that his object was to issue an actual specimen with each copy of a publication on which he was engaged. He was told that it was impossible to have his wish fulfilled; but he still urged his request, and it was discovered later that he had called at another institution on a similar strange and ghastly errand. "Now," said the coroner, "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 need hardly say that I at once communicated my information to the Detective Department at Scotland-yard. Of course I do not know what use has been made of it; but I believe that publicity may possibly further elucidate this fact, and, therefore, I have not withheld from you my knowledge. By means of the Press some further explanation may be forthcoming from America, if not from here." This view of the motive of the fiend who has most probably committed at least two of the undiscovered Whitechapel murders, gives point to the suggestion of a New York correspondent of my own, who says the Whitechapel murders recall to him similar crimes committed five years ago in Texas. The murderer was never discovered, and his proceedings were so remarkable that one cannot help thinking he may have come to London from America. He invariably selected women as his victims, preferring those of bad character, as does the Whitechapel fiend, and he horribly mutilated their bodies. San Antonio was the scene of his operations. Every possible precaution was taken against him, but he committed his awful crimes in defiance of vigilance committees. The horror lasted for several weeks. At last it ended. The conclusion was that the murderer was a madman, and had eventually killed himself; but now it seems possible he may have turned up in London. If he has, there seems every reason to believe that he is the man who was last seen in Annie Chapman's company shortly before the murder was committed, and this is a tolerably close description of him - "A foreigner of dark complexion, over 40 years of age, a little taller than the deceased, of shabby-genteel appearance, with a brown deer-stalker hat on his head, and a dark coat on his back." Some of the journals blame the Home Secretary for not offering a reward for the discovery of the murderer; but so far as the police are concerned they had no special incentive. Their reputation as a detective force is very much at stake.

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald, Saturday 3 November 1888, page 7

I have never seen this particular article before:

SPECIAL EDITION.
THIS DAY'S NEWS.

ANOTHER WHITECHAPEL MURDER.
A WOMAN HORRIBLY MUTILATED.

BODY FOUND IN A BACK YARD.

Another murder, of a most brutal nature, has been committed in Whitechapel. At a spot only a very few hundred yards from where the mangled body of the poor woman Nicholls was found just a week ago, the body of another woman, mutilated and horribly disfigured, was found at about six o'clock this morning. She was lying in the backyard of 29, Hanbury-street, Spitalfields, a house occupied by Mr. Richardson, a packing-case maker. As late as five o'clock this morning it is said the woman, who is at present unidentified, but is supposed to have been one who frequented the streets of the neighbourhood, was drinking in a public-house near at hand called the Ten Bells. The wounds upon the poor woman, so far as it at present known, are almost identical with those found upon the body of the woman Nicholls. The throat was cut in a most horrible manner and the stomach ripped up.

LOCALITY OF THE CRIME.

A crime of even a more revolting character than that recently committed at Buck's-row, where Mary Ann Nicholls was killed in a barbarous manner, was discovered this morning in Hanbury-street, Whitechapel, not five minutes' walk from the scene of the previous tragedy. As may well be imagined, the inhabitants in the district are seized with the greatest alarm, and at every street corner near the spot crowds of neighbours continue to assemble and discuss this latest edition of Whitechapel mysteries.
Hanbury-street (lately known as Brown's-lane), is a respectable thoroughfare at the back of the Whitechapel-road, and it is but a few yards from Spitalfields Working Men's Club.
No. 29, Hanbury-street, is a building of about four storeys, the rooms being let to tenants of the working classes. The room in front, on the ground floor, is used as a cat's-meat shop.

FINDING THE BODY.

From the front door is a passage about twenty feet long, leading to a small paved yard. It was in this yard that the body of a middle-aged woman, terribly mutilated, was discovered this morning, lying in a pool of blood. The sight was too shocking to describe.
The poor creature was found by John Davis, a man employed in the Spitalfields Market. He is a married man, and lodges with his wife in a room at the top of the house. He went down this morning, at six o'clock, when he saw the deceased lying prostrate and lifeless in the yard.

SURGICAL EXAMINATION.

Dr. Phillips, of Spital-square, the Divisional Surgeon of Police, was at once apprised of the case as soon as it was reported to the police by John Davis. On arriving there Dr. Phillips found that the woman's throat had been cut nearly to the vertebrae, that she was completely disembowelled, and other dreadful injuries had been inflicted. She was then removed to the mortuary. To show the barbarity with which the crime was committed, the poor creature's intestines were lying near her.

THE VICTIM'S ANTECEDENTS.

A further examination showed that the woman had a bruise on her chest - supposed to be a rather old-standing injury - and it is believed that for this injury she had been in St. Bartholomew's Hospital. She went by the nickname of "Sibby," but it is believed that her right name is Annie Chapman. Her husband, a pensioner, allowed her, it is stated, 10s. a week. Late last night she was at Vauxhall. At half-past five o'clock this morning she was in a public-house - believed to be the Ten Bells, Church-street, where, it is alleged, she was drinking with a man. This tavern is about five minutes' walk from the scene of the crime.

POLICE INQUIRIES.

Chief Inspector West, Inspector Chandler, and other officers, were promptly investigating the case. Inquiries were at once made as to the man said to have been seen with the woman drinking in a public-house, and later on

HER DESCRIPTION

was issued. It was as follows: - "Woman, about 45 years of age, found murdered in a yard at 29, Hanbury-street. Length of body 5ft. 4in. Hair (wavy) brown; blue eyes. Two teeth deficient in the lower jaw. Rings recently taken off from hands. (This is believed to be the case, from the marks left on the woman's fingers.) Black hat, black cloth jacket, and brown linsey bodice, and skirt trimmed black, light striped petticoat, lace boots, old and dirty." On the body were found some papers in the name of a soldier of a Surrey Regiment. These papers were almost illegible.

MRS. DAVIS' STATEMENT.

Mary Davis, wife of the man who discovered the deceased in the yard, made the following statement this morning: - "The bell was ringing for six o'clock, and that is how I know the time that my husband went downstairs. He then said to me, "Old woman, I must now go down, for it is time I was off to my work." He went down, but did not return, as he tells me that when he saw the deceased, and the shocking state in which she was, he at once ran off for the police. We never heard any screams, either in the night or this morning. I went down myself shortly after, and nearly fainted away at what I saw. The poor woman's throat was cut, and the inside of her body was lying beside her. Someone beside me then remarked that the murder was just like the one committed in Buck's-row. The other one could not have been such a dreadful sight as this, for the poor woman found this morning was quite ripped open. She was lying in a corner of the yard, on her back, with her legs drawn up. It was just in such a spot that no one could see from the outside, and thus the dead creature might have been lying there for some time."
The murdered woman had lodged on and off at 35, Dorset-street, Spitalfields, a common lodging-house, for the last eight or nine months. Last night she had not anything to pay for her lodging, and she stated to the deputy that she should "go out and get some money." She did not return. Recently she was an inmate of the Whitechapel Workhouse for a brief period, occasionally making use of the casual ward when her funds would not permit of her paying for her lodging in Dorset-street.

WHAT THE MILKMEN SAW.

James Wiltshire and Alfred Henry Gunthorpe, two milkmen in the employ of the Dairy Supply Company, Museum-street, Bloomsbury, were driving in separate carts through Hanbury-street early this morning. Wiltshire passed that thoroughfare at twenty minutes to six. He says, "There was no bother then, and no sign that a murder had been committed. There were people about, but I did not notice anyone in particular." Alfred Henry Gunthorpe passed through part of Hanbury-street into Brick-lane, shortly after, and he saw nothing of a suspicious character.
It is reported that two men have identified the body found in Spitalfields as that of a woman whom they say is known as Ellen Clarke. They assert that they were drinking with her last night.

HAD BEEN DEAD TWO HOURS.

One singular circumstance in connection with the discovery is the statement of a lad, named Richardson, that at half-past five he passed through the yard, and the body was not there. This, however, can be accounted for by the fact that the body lay in a corner, and might not have been observed by the young man. The doctor, too, says that the deceased had been dead for about two hours when he was called to see her.

NO WEAPON - NO CLUE.

The police have - at present, no reliable clue to work upon, the fact that no weapon, or anything to give the slightest trace of the murderer, was near the body.

EXCITEMENT IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD.

The excitement in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel this morning is intense. The discovery of this terrible crime, following as it does so rapidly upon the murders in George-yard and Buck's-row, seems to have paralysed the inhabitants with fear. All business in the vicinity of the scene of the murder, has, apparently, for the time, been stopped. The streets were, this morning, swarmed with people, who stood about in groups, and excitedly discussed the details of this morning's murder. The opinion is now firmly expressed that the murders have been committed by either the same person, or the same gang of persons. All these murders have been committed either shortly before or shortly after midnight, and the dead bodies of the victims have been found in the morning. But the police authorities have not yet been able to bring the crimes home to anyone. Such was the gist of the conversation which was carried on by the excited throng. Great anxiety is also felt for the future. While the murderer is at large they cannot feel safe. These people, however, were not content with simply discussing the subject of the murder. Every little diversion that was likely to create excitement was eagerly sought after. Consequently, a poorly-clad woman,

WHO WAS SEEN CRYING BITTERLY

in Commercial-street attracted attention, and was quickly surrounded by a large and sympathetic crowd. The poor woman was in a very distressed condition. She averred that the murdered woman was her mother. She had, she said, been to the mortuary, but the police would not allow her to see the body. A police-constable ultimately arrived and requested the woman to "move on." She refused to do so, and struggled violently. A man who was present, and who apparently was acquainted with the woman, however, lifted her on to his shoulder and carried her away. Almost at the same moment the cry of

"STOP THIEF!"

was raised. It was then seen that a youth - apparently about 19 years of age - was being chased along Commercial-street by a large crowd of men, boys, and women. The lad turned down a side street. A constable, however, was in the street, and captured the runaway. The prisoner was taken to the police-station, accompanied by a crowd of several hundred persons. Then

AN EXTRAORDINARY SPECTACLE

was witnessed. While passing Hanbury-street, the cry of "The murderer is caught," was raised. This was the signal for a general stampede in the direction of Commercial-street. From every alley and by street, men, women, and children rushed in hundreds. The excitement was intensified by the spread of the cry, "The murderer is caught." The majority of the crowd, however, ultimately found out their mistake. A taste for the morbid was also evinced by the crowd. The roadway facing the scene of the murder in Hanbury-street was completely blocked by the people, who stood idly gazing at the house, and the mortuary gate was also besieged. After the captured thief had been taken away, and the excitement had somewhat subsided, the crowd was again thrown into a ferment of excitement by the appearance of a small body of police who were wheeling an ambulance, containing what appeared to be the

DEAD BODY OF A WOMAN.

The crowd immediately surrounded the ambulance, and the police had the greatest difficulty in forcing their way through it. One woman, who ran forward and looked through a small opening in the covering of the ambulance, asserted that the woman's head was almost completely severed from her body. It was also rumoured that it was the body of another woman who had been found dead this morning, and who, it is thought, has also been the victim of a foul murder.

ANOTHER ALARM.

Excitement was once more caused in the Whitechapel-road by the appearance of a two-horse van belonging to the Great Eastern Railway Company, being rapidly driven towards the London Hospital. On the floor of the van lay the body of a man apparently dead. The body was covered over, but the face was exposed to view. A police-constable and four workmen were also in the van. The van, though driven at such a rapid rate, was followed by a crowd, which gradually increased in size while on its way to the hospital.

THE "WRITING ON THE WALL."

It is currently reported in Hanbury street that this morning the following paragraph, written in chalk, was seen upon the wall of one of the back gardens there, and four persons distinctly stated they had actually seen the writing. The words are, "I have now done three, and intend to do nine more and give myself up, and at the same time give my reasons for doing the murders." Whether there is any truth in the matter remains to be seen.

RUMOURED ARRESTS.

There have been several rumours of arrests today, but we are assured that these reports are without any foundation.

ANOTHER WOMAN STABBED.
THE ASSAILANT ARRESTED.

At five minutes after eleven o'clock a most exciting incident took place. A man suddenly attacked a woman in the Spitalfields Market while she was passing through. After felling her to the ground with a blow, he began kicking her and pulled out a knife. Some women who had collected, having the terrible tragedy that brought them there still fresh in their minds, on seeing the knife, raised such piercing shrieks of "Murder!" so that they reached the enormous crowds in Hanbury-street. There was at once a rush for Commercial-street, where the markets are situate, as it was declared by some, that there was another murder, and by others that the murderer had been arrested. Seeing the immense crowd swarming around him, the man, who was the cause of the alarm, made more furious efforts to reach the woman, from whom he had been separated by some persons, who interfered on her behalf. He, however, threw these on one side fell upon the woman, knife in hand, and inflicted various stabs on her head, cut her forehead, neck, and fingers before he was again pulled off. When he was again pulled off the woman lay motionless - the immense crowd took up the cry of "Murder," and the people who were on the streets raised cries of "Lynch him!" At this juncture the police arrived, arrested the man, and after a while had the woman conveyed on a stretcher to the police-station in Commercial-street, where she was examined by the divisional surgeon.

Source: The Echo, Saturday September 8, 1888, Page 3

TOUCH-AND-GO PAPERS.
HUNTING THE MURDERER.

Like a good many others, I have taken my turn at trying to discover the murderer of the poor woman in Hanbury-street, Spitalfields.
Don't for a moment suppose that I have been hunting for the "leather apron." I will leave half tipsy women and reporters in search of sensation to look after him. If all the men who wear leather aprons and knives, and have ugly faces, and walk noiselessly because their boots are worn out, and attempt occasionally to blackmail women, are to be arrested as murderers, we shall have nearly all the station-houses in the district filled with journeymen cabinetmakers - good, bad, and indifferent.
Firstly, then, after careful inquiry, I find there is nothing whatever to indicate that the same man killed her as killed Mary Ann Nicholls. There was almost unquestionably a bayonet wound in Mary Ann Nicholls' body, and many other signs pointed directly to her brutal assassination having been the work of one or more drunken soldiers. It was clear, moreover, that the attempt to murder Mary Ann Nicholls was not the desire for plunder. Robbery had nothing to do with that murder.
Annie Chapman, on the other hand, was killed for the sake of three bogus rings she wore. Her throat was cut and her rings wrenched off first, and if then her brutal murderer ripped her up, it was probably because the details of Mary Ann Nicholls' death were in his mind and he felt an impulse to imitate them.
I know the districts in which these two murders have been committed exceedingly well. There are in it any number of low lodging-houses, where men and women get beds for the night at rates varying from threepence to sixpence. In arrangement they are all alike. There is a large kitchen, or general room, in which a big fire is kept up, and which is filled with seats, a long deal table, and a few pegs on which to hang things. This room is always well lighted; a man covered with blood, as the murderer of Annie Chapman must have been, could not enter such a place without being seen.
Upstairs the various rooms are fitted with little narrow beds, probably about two feet or two feet three inches wide, placed close to each other. In each room there is a police notice up, notifying the number of people who may occupy the apartment. These rooms are invariably nearly full. Their occupants are the sharpest-eyed people in the world. A man covered with blood could not enter there without being noticed.
But he could not pass the door, in the first place, without being seen, for at it a man always sits or stands to note the outgoers and to take money of the incomers; and he is lynx-eyed enough, in all conscience. Nobody covered with blood could pass him unseen.
Having, then, gone all over the ground carefully, I have come to these conclusions: -

Firstly, that the man who killed Annie Chapman is a man who lives habitually in one or more lodging-houses.
Secondly, that he is at this moment well known to the keeper at least of that house, if not to one or two of the inmates as the murderer.
Thirdly, that he is not far away from the scene of the crime, and that he has no pecuniary means of escape.
Fourthly, that he had nothing whatever to do with the Mary Ann Nicholls' murder, and simply killed Annie Chapman for the sake of her rings.
Fifthly, that a police notification to the effect that concealers of the murderer, after a certain date, would be indicted when discovered as accessories after the fact, and that a reward of 200 pounds would be given for news of the murderer, would produce this scoundrel in a very short time.
Sixthly, that the man whom Taylor saw with blood on his hands is not likely to be the man who is wanted. The murder was committed much earlier - at least two hours - than is commonly supposed, and the murderer got to shelter very soon afterwards - before daylight broke, at any rate.
Seventhly, that the murderer is owing in large part to the very inefficient police protection of the district. In going about the streets, I saw only one or two policemen when I ought to have passed a dozen, at least. And I wondered not that Annie Chapman had been killed, but that many more had not been done to death in like manner. ABOUT TOWN.

Source: The Echo, Monday September 10, 1888, Page 1

A RIVER MYSTERY.

SHOCKING DISCOVERY AT PIMLICO.

At noon on Tuesday a human arm was found entangled among some timber floating on the riverside, by Grosvenor-road, Pimlico. The police were at once sent for, and a constable speedily took charge of the limb, which he conveyed to the police-station at Gerald-road, Eaton-square. Dr. Thomas Neville, surgeon, of 85, Pimlico-road, and of 123, Sloane-street, subsequently made an examination of the arm, and pronounced it to be the right arm of a female, probably of some 25 or 30 years of age. It had been severed at the shoulder-joint, and had the appearance of having been in the water some two or three days. The cut was not skilfully made, and was such as would be the case had the operation been performed by a person ignorant of the elements of anatomy. Round the arm and above the elbow was a piece of string, tied rather tightly, but not sufficiently taut to produce much of an indentation. It is thought not unlikely that the string may have been employed to prevent the blood oozing through the veins, and so causing a risk of splashing to the person disposing of the severed limb. If this was the intention the artifice was scarcely successful, as when taken from the river there was still some bleeding.
The contour of the limb, the delicacy of the hand, and the want of muscular development clearly indicate that the arm is that of a woman, and that comparatively young. It is difficult, of course, to tell the precise age, but the examination showed that the female, whoever she was, was a well-developed person, apparently in good health. The person murdered must have been a very fine young woman. The arm was fully as long as that of a man of 5ft. 10in. or 5ft. 11in. This shows the woman must have been about 5ft. 8in. There was no trace of disease of any kind, and there were no bruises suggestive of violence, but there were one or two slight abrasions, caused probably by contact with bridges or floating timber. It is not easy to say when the limb was cut off, but Dr. Neville, we understand, inclines to the view that the knife was used very soon after death. Had the act been performed some considerable time after death the appearance of the limb would have indicated it. The suggestion was put forward that the limb probably came from a dissecting-room; but the character of the cut negatives any such theory. The arm was evidently cut through by a big, sharp instrument, compared with which the ordinary dissecting-room knife is a mere toy. Moreover, the merest tyro in the dissecting-room would not think of amputating any one of the extremities in this fashion. The theory which the police are forced to entertain is that the arm forms part of a woman who has met with a tragic end, and whose body is being disposed of in sections as opportunity offers.
The police made applications at the various London hospitals to know if any limbs were missing. From some of these institutions - St. Thomas's, St. George's, and those at Westminster and Charing-cross - returns have been made, and these show a negative result. No portions of any body have been missed from these institutions, and such are the stringent regulations applying to dissection that it is considered impossible for a single limb to be clandestinely conveyed out of the hospital without its absence being immediately detected. No student can possess a whole body for dissection unless under very special circumstances, and each separate portion is supposed to be carefully registered in books kept for the purpose.
On Wednesday afternoon Dr. Neville, the divisional surgeon, accompanied by Chief-inspector Jones and Inspector Adams, of the B Division, visited the mortuary at Ebury-bridge, Pimlico, for the purpose of minutely examining the arm. The limb measured to the tips of the fingers exactly 30 inches, and it was noticed that the palm of the hand presented a corrugated appearance, which is, no doubt, attributed to the action of the water. The fingers, which are described as being rather stout, are shrivelled up, and it is said that the back of the hand is peculiarly white, resembling a piece of white coral. The flesh projects beyond the finger nails, which are very dirty. The arm will for the present remain at the mortuary to await the orders of Mr. John Troutbeck, the district coroner, who has been informed of the discovery; but it is highly improbable that an inquest will be held.

A MISSING YOUNG WOMAN.

A Mrs. Potter, living in Spencer-buildings, Westminster, in considerable distress of mind applied to Mr. D' Eyncourt, at the Westminster police-court, on Thursday, stating that she had reason to fear that the arm found in the river off Grosvenor-road belonged to her daughter Emma, a girl 17 years of age, of rather weak intellect, who had been missing from home since Saturday morning at 11 o'clock. Her daughter had given her some trouble by going in the streets at night. - Mr. D' Eyncourt said he could only refer the applicant to the Press and the police.
Inspector Webber, A Division, attended before the magistrate at Westminster police-court on Friday, and stated that the police on the previous night found and took home the girl Emma Potter.

THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS.

OFFICIAL INQUIRIES AND NUMEROUS ARRESTS.

Further investigation of the atrocious murder committed at 29, Hanbury-street, Spitalfields - the fourth crime of its kind within a few months - has not decreased its horrors. The lengthy account given in our Special Edition of last week has been confirmed in every particular. The crime was undoubtedly committed at the precise spot where the body was found; but although the police have arrested in the past week nearly a dozen people, including one man named Piser, said to be known as "Leather Apron," they are no nearer success in their search after the murderer. Piser was released and gave evidence at the inquest on Wednesday. The most astounding fact disclosed at the inquest has been undoubtedly in reference to the disappearance of parts of the murdered woman's body.
During Sunday the following official telegram was wired to every station throughout the metropolis and suburbs: - "Commercial-street, 8:20 p.m. - Description of a man wanted, who entered a passage of the house at which the murder was committed with a prostitute at two a.m., the 8th: Age 37; height 5ft. 7in.; rather dark beard and moustache; dress, short dark jacket, dark vest and trousers, black scarf, and black felt hat; spoke with a foreign accent."
In the course of Saturday night and Sunday morning the police arrested two men on suspicion of being concerned in the latest crime. One man was found by an officer in Buck's-row shortly after one o'clock in the morning. The man appeared to be hiding in the street, and when accosted by the officer rushed off at the top of his speed. An alarm was raised, and after a sharp race the man was arrested. He was a villainous-looking fellow with long hair and shaggy beard, dressed only in a pair of ragged blue serge trousers, and an old dirty shirt. He resisted his captors, but was eventually secured and conveyed to Bethnal-green police-station. It was said at the time that he was carrying a long knife concealed in the sleeve of his shirt, but on examination no weapon was found upon him. He gave an account of himself, when questioned, which was in the first instance considered unsatisfactory, but inquiries were immediately set on foot, and in the result the man, who appeared to be a common vagrant, was released from custody. The second arrest was effected in Gloucester-street, where a man, aged 40, having the look of a seafarer, was arrested. It was pretty obvious, however, from the replies which he gave and his general appearance, that he was not the man sought for, and after he had spent some time in Commercial-street station he was also set at liberty.
A man was arrested at Deptford during Sunday afternoon, but subsequently released. In the course of Monday quite a number of persons were taken up and conducted to the station houses, attended by clamouring crowds. The police, however, found in most instances that the captives were decent people, totally unconnected with the crimes of which they were suspected, and able to give entirely satisfactory accounts of themselves.
Very early on Monday the popular excitement in Whitechapel was suddenly sent up to fever heat by the announcement that the man "Leather Apron," accused everywhere, directly or by implication, of the whole series of murders, had been arrested. The suspect proved to be one John Piser, a boot finisher by trade, living at 22, Mulberry-street, and described and known as an inoffensive and fairly industrious working man. Piser took his arrest very quietly, and accompanied the detective without saying a word to Leman-street police-station, where he was detained for many hours. Several persons who were said to be personally acquainted with "Leather Apron" were afforded the opportunity of examining carefully the features of Piser, but all failed to identify him with that missing desperado. Meanwhile the police had examined the inmates of 22, Mulberry-street, and had searched the premises from top to bottom, but the only instruments found capable of being used as lethal weapons were some finishing tools used by Piser in his business. Suspicion against him was, however, sufficiently strong for the police to keep him in custody.

On Tuesday morning information was received, making, according to the police, a case of suspicion against Piser. It appears that on the morning of the murder of the woman Chapman a man was in Hanbury-street, and noticed a woman in the company of two men. They appeared to be quarrelling, and he heard the men make use of threats. Such an incident, however, is a very common one in the district, and the man, after a good look at the disputants, passed on his way. On Tuesday the man was requested to attend at Leman-street police-station, and on his arrival there, about one o'clock, some 20 men, mostly brought in from the adjacent thoroughfares, were paraded before him. The result somewhat startled the police, for the man without a moment's hesitation pointed to John Piser as the man whom he heard threatening a woman in Hanbury-street on the morning of the murder. Piser calmly protested that the man was entirely mistaken, but he was put back to the cells and more closely watched. The police during the afternoon and evening made careful inquiries into the statements made by the man who professed to identify Piser. The manner of this man, who is apparently of Spanish blood, and displayed a blue ribbon on his coat, did not inspire much confidence in his veracity, and he was severely cross-examined by a sort of informal tribunal, consisting of experienced detective officers. The witness added to his first statement that he not only saw the prisoner in Hanbury-street on the morning of the murder, but that he actually took him by the collar when he was about to strike the woman, but further questioned, several times contradicted himself.

Piser's relative became highly indignant at his prolonged detention. His brother, in the course of an interview with a representative of the Press, repeated with much emphasis that Piser did not leave the house between the Thursday and the day of his apprehension. He took care not to do so because he had been subjected to much annoyance by being followed by women and others, who persisted in calling him "Leather Apron." Piser, he added is physically a very weak man, and for that reason does not keep at work very closely. He is infirm and has been under hospital treatment on and off for a long time past. Each time the police searched Piser's lodgings, they found no trace of blood-stained clothes, or indeed anything of a suspicious character, but they carried off five knives, which were at once subjected to chemical analysis. All are of the class used in the leather-currying trade, having blades about six inches in length, with stout handles sometimes notched in a peculiar way. There was, to all appearance, no blood either on the blades or the handles; but on some of the blades there were marks apparently caused by rust. This was particularly noticeable in respect of a formidable-looking curved knife, which had been sharpened recently. The chemical examination of these knives resulted in an announcement that none of the marks upon the weapons was a bloodstain, and about eight o'clock on Tuesday evening Piser was set at liberty, the police never having entered a charge against him.
A second very suspicious character was taken into custody at Gravesend. The man was arrested on Sunday night by Police-constable Vellensworth "on information received" in the Pope's Head tavern in that town. He gave the name of William Henry Pigott, and seemed to be about 40 years of age. He was in a very dirty state, which he explained was due to his having tramped from London. Upon his clothing were many stains, apparently of blood, and his shirt was torn and dirty. The forefinger of his left hand was badly wounded, and he had other suspicious marks upon him. On being pressed Pigott showed considerable trepidation, and trembled constantly, either from fear or from the effects of drink. He admitted that he was in Whitechapel on the Saturday morning not far from the scene of the murder, and that he had an altercation with a woman, in the course of which his finger was bitten. Detective-inspector Abberline, of Scotland-yard, proceeded to Gravesend, and, on seeing the prisoner, was struck with his resemblance to the man who entered the Prince Albert public-house in Whitechapel on Saturday morning in company, it is stated, with the murdered woman, and of whom a description had been issued by the police, on information supplied by Mrs. Fiddymont, the landlady. Pigott was removed under police escort to London, and not long after his arrival it was ascertained practically beyond doubt that he slept at a common lodging-house in Whitechapel on the Friday, a circumstance which greatly raised the hopes of the police. Pigott's condition did not improve during the journey from Gravesend, and when he arrived in custody of Inspector Abberline at Commercial-street police-station he was in a state of mind closely resembling that of a man recovering from delirium tremens. He had assumed a sullen demeanour, and absolutely refused to speak a word to anybody. The first official to examine the prisoner was Dr. Phillips, the divisional police surgeon. The stains on the man's clothing were closely investigated by means of the microscope, and pronounced to be blood. His boots were taken off and subjected to a minute examination, with the result that they also were declared to be stained with blood, the traces of which the long tramp from London to Gravesend had failed to efface. At a quarter-past two the prisoner was placed among a number of other men, and Mrs. Fiddymont and other witnesses who had noticed the mysterious customer at the Prince Albert tavern were called in, and one after another they inspected the row of men that were drawn up before them. To the great disappointment of the police not one of the witnesses was able to identify Pigott as the man wanted, and the authorities were for the moment at a loss to know what to do with their prisoner, whom they once more handed over to Dr. Phillips. That gentleman, as the result of further inquiry and examination, arrived at the conclusion that Pigott was not in his right mind, and gave a certificate to that effect. Armed with this document, the police removed the man to the lunatic ward of the workhouse, instituting a careful watch on his movements and keeping him practically in custody.
During nearly the whole of Monday Mrs. Fiddymont and other witnesses were driven from one police-station to another, in the hope that they might identify the prisoners. But in almost every case the arrest was made simply on suspicion, and inquiry only resulted in the release of the prisoner. The arrests came chiefly from common lodging-houses and such like places.
On Wednesday a man was taken into custody at Holloway, but as he turned out to be a harmless lunatic he was taken to the workhouse infirmary. Subsequently he was removed to the asylum at Bow.
The principal officers engaged in investigating the Whitechapel murders were summoned to Scotland-yard on Thursday, and conferred with the chief officials. Later in the day Mr. Bruce, Assistant-commissioner, and Colonel Monsell, Chief-constable, paid a private visit to Whitechapel without notifying the local officials of their intention to do so. They visited the scene of the Buck's-row murder, as well as Hanbury-street, and made many inquiries. They spent nearly a quarter of an hour at 29, Hanbury-street, and minutely inspected the house and the yard in which the body of Mrs. Chapman was found. No arrests were made during the day.
On Friday evening a man named Edward M'Kenna was apprehended on suspicion by the police, and taken to Commercial-street police-station. The man gave an address at 15, Brick-lane, Whitechapel. The most suspicious article found on him was a small table-knife, rather the worse for wear, which M'Kenna asserts he uses for the purpose of cutting his food. According to his own statement, which is fairly detailed, the man has recently been on tramp in Kent, and has only just returned to London. He gains a living by peddling laces and other small articles.

THE EXCITEMENT OVER THE MURDER.

As a proof that the excitement over the murders is not confined to Whitechapel and to one grade of society, it may be mentioned that two prominent members of the peerage were in Whitechapel on Monday, and visited the scene of the last tragedy.
During Saturday afternoon the occupants of the house adjoining the scene of the murder charged an admission fee of one penny to people anxious to view the spot where the body was found. Several hundreds of people availed themselves of the opportunity. In order to prevent a repetition of this, five policemen guarded the scene of the crime in Hanbury-street on Sunday. No one was admitted unless he resided in the house. In the street half-a-dozen costermongers took up their stand and did a brisk business in fruit and refreshments. Thousands of respectably-dressed persons visited the scene, and occasionally the road became so crowded that the constables had to clear it by making a series of raids upon the spectators. The windows of the adjoining houses were full of persons watching the crowd below. A number of people also visited the house in Dorset-street where the murdered woman lodged. In the course of Sunday nearly a dozen persons were arrested for rioting, and conveyed to the Commercial-street police-station.
With regard to the bright farthings found on the deceased, a woman this week stated that a man accosted her on Saturday morning and gave her two "half-sovereigns," but that, when he became violent, she screamed and he ran off. She discovered afterwards that the "half-sovereigns" were two brass medals. It is said that this woman did accompany the man, who seemed as if he would kill her, to a house in Hanbury-street, possibly No. 29, at 2:30 a.m.
A statement was made on Thursday night to a reporter by a woman named Lloyd, living in Heath-street, Commercial-road, that while standing outside a neighbour's door about half-past 10 on Monday night she heard her daughter, who was sitting on the door-step, scream, and on looking round saw a man walk hurriedly away. The daughter states that the man peered into her face, and that she saw a large knife at his side. A lady living opposite stated that a similar incident took place outside her house. The man was short of stature, with a sandy beard, and wore a cloth cap. The woman drew the attention of some men who were passing to the strange man, and they pursued him some distance until he turned up a by-street, and, after assuming a threatening attitude, suddenly disappeared.

A FALSE SCENT.

What was at the time thought an important discovery, throwing considerable light upon the movements of the murderer immediately after the committal of the crime, was made on Tuesday afternoon. Describing this a correspondent said: - A girl happened to be walking in the garden or yard of the house, 25, Hanbury-street, the next house but one to the scene of the murder, when her attention was attracted to peculiar marks on the wall and on the garden path. She communicated the discovery to Detective-inspector Chandler, who had just called at the house in order to make a plan of the back premises of the three houses for the use of the coroner at the inquest, on its resumption on Wednesday. The whole of the yard was then carefully examined, with the result that a bloody trail was found distinctly marked for a distance of five feet or six feet in the direction of the back door of the house. Further investigation left no doubt that the trail was that of the murderer, who, it was evident, after finishing his sanguinary work, had passed through or over the dividing fence between Nos. 29 and 27, and thus into the garden of No. 25. On the wall of the last house there was found a curious mark, between a smear and a sprinkle, which had probably been made by the murderer, who, alarmed by the blood-soaked state of his coat, took off that garment and knocked it against the wall.
On Wednesday the supposed bloodstains upon the wall of 25, Hanbury-street, were closely examined by the divisional police surgeon and the officers engaged in the case, and the opinion was then formed that they were some kind of sewage deposit. The colour was such as to mislead any but the eye of an expert. Renewed investigation showed that similar discoloration was apparent on the other side of the wall, proceeding from the same cause, apparently; and this fact, taken in conjunction with the medical opinion, was held to render a chemical analysis unnecessary.
In respect to the pieces of newspaper discovered in Bayley's yard on Tuesday afternoon, where they had been, it was supposed, thrown by the murderer, who had first wiped his hands upon them when standing in the yard of 25, Hanbury-street, it has been alleged that they have been subjected to analysis, and the stains upon them proved to be those of human blood. On inquiry at the surgery of Mr. Phillips it was stated that these pieces of paper have not been examined as reported, and the doctor was so satisfied of the real nature of the other so-called bloodstains upon the wall that he has not thought it necessary to analyse the matter submitted to him.

FUNERAL OF ANNIE CHAPMAN.

The funeral of Annie Chapman, the victim of the Spitalfields murder, took place on Friday morning. The utmost secrecy was observed in the arrangements. Shortly after seven o'clock a hearse drew up outside the mortuary in Montague-street, and the body was quickly removed. At nine o'clock a start was made for Manor-park cemetery, the place selected by the friends of the deceased for the interment, but no coaches followed, as it was desired that public attention should not be attracted. The relatives met the body at the cemetery.
From inquiries made this week by Superintendent Hayes, of the Windsor police, there is every reason to believe that the murdered woman was the widow of a coachman named Chapman, formerly in the service of a gentleman living near the Royal borough, and not of a veterinary surgeon, as stated by Amelia Palmer at the inquest on Monday. Her husband held a most excellent position, but she appears to have become very dissipated while with him, and he was at last reluctantly obliged to dissociate himself from her. She lived for a time at Windsor and eventually quitted that town for London. One of her children, a girl, was educated at a highly-respectable ladies' school in the Royal borough, the cost of her tuition being defrayed by the victim's sister. Chapman was taken ill two years ago, when the remittances sent to his wife seemed to have ceased. During his sickness a wretched-looking woman, having the appearance of a tramp called at the Merry Wives of Windsor, in the Spital-road, and inquired where he was living. She said that she was his wife, and that she had walked down from London, and had been sleeping at a lodging-house in Coinbrook. On her way she also stated that, having been told that her husband, who had discontinued sending her 10s a week, was ill, she had come to Windsor to ascertain if the report was true, and not merely an excuse for failing to send her the money as usual. The woman quitted the house shortly afterwards, and the landlord did not see her again. Chapman died over 18 months ago, and there is little doubt that since his decease the unfortunate woman has had to depend upon her own resources for a livelihood.

THE MISSING PENSIONER.

The pensioner, Edward Stanley, whose name had been frequently mentioned in connection with the murdered woman Chapman, on Friday night attended at the Commercial-street police-station, and made a statement, which was taken down by Inspector Helson. He gave the police a full account of his whereabouts since he last saw the deceased woman which was on the Sunday preceding the murder. Since then he had been following his usual employment, and had taken no steps to conceal his movements. The man is described as 47 years of age and superior to the ordinary run of those who frequent the lodging-houses of Spitalfields. He states that he has known Chapman for about two years, and denies that she was of a quarrelsome disposition. So far as he is aware, there was no man with whom she was on bad terms, or who would have any reason for seeking her life. Stanley will attend the inquest when the proceedings are resumed, though his evidence is not expected to throw much light on the tragedy. On Friday morning a telegram was received from the police at Brentford, stating that a pensioner there answered the description of Stanley, and a detective was at once despatched to make enquiries. When, however, the real Stanley had appeared further investigation was abandoned.

REWARDS OFFERED.

Mr. S. Montagu, M.P. for Whitechapel, has offered 100 pounds as a reward for the capture of the murderer, and has asked Superintendent Arnold to issue notices to that effect.
On Tuesday morning posters were pasted up all over Whitechapel, offering a reward in these terms: - "Finding that, in spite of murders being committed in our midst, our police force are still inadequate to discover the author or authors of the late atrocities, we, the undersigned, have formed ourselves into a committee, and intend offering a substantial reward to anyone, citizen or otherwise, who shall give such information that will bring the murderer or murderers to justice." The committee meets every evening at nine o'clock at the Crown, 74, Mile-end-road.
The Jews also announce their intention of offering a reward.
So anxious are the police to bring home the crime to the murderer, that the members of the H Division, it is reported, have actually subscribed amongst themselves a sum of 50 pounds, to supplement the reward of 100 pounds offered by Mr. Samuel Montagu, M.P. This money will be paid to anyone who may confidentially place themselves in communication with the authorities at any of the local police-stations.

A PLAN FOR TRAPPING THE MURDERER.

Dr. Forbes Winslow this week offered his services to Scotland-yard. He states to a reporter: "The first and foremost condition I propose is the matter be left entirely under my control, and an implicit compliance with my demands, however strange these demands might appear. I say this advisedly, because there is no doubt that the requests would appear strange. I have not thought out the plan very carefully as yet, but your surmise as to the employ of a decoy is right, only I should not want one but a dozen decoys, distributed throughout the whole of London. I am not so certain that if the right men for this purpose were found that they would, as you express it, be risking their lives with 999 chances in 1,000 against them. They might be hampered by their adoption of female attire, but men used to deal with homicidal maniacs would not let it come to the bitter end. Their presence of mind - for that more than physical strength would be essential - would save them. Homicidal mania is absolutely incurable however long a time may elapse between the recurrent attacks of it. I should begin by communicating with the authorities not only of every public and private lunatic asylum round and in London but throughout the length and breadth of the land. I should want not only a list of all those who have escaped, but also of those who have been discharged as "quasi-cured." You may give it as my firm opinion that the murderer of Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, and the woman in George-yard is a lunatic at large - and what is more, a well-to-do lunatic, probably living in the West-end. All the ordinary means of detection will fail, because, once more, the moment his fit of mania is passed, he becomes quite rational. He may not even be aware of having committed the murder. That would be what we denominate epileptic stupor.
The suggestion of male decoys for the assassin has, it is stated, been acted on extensively; it is quite certain that for two nights past three medical students have been out armed with revolver and dagger concealed in the dresses worn by them.
In addition to this the hapless women of the streets are themselves armed with knives, and two poor creatures on Friday morning showed a reporter two formidable bowie knives, which they would unquestionably use upon any man who attempted violence of a deadly character. A thin woman, pale, weak, and starving, said, with evident sincerity, "Well, suppose I do get killed, it will be a good thing for me, for the winter is coming on, and the life is awful. I can't leave it; nobody would employ me."
Among the many suggestions made to the police is one urging that the pupils of the murdered woman's eyes should be photographed on the chance of the retina retaining an image of the murderer capable of reproduction.

OPENING OF THE INQUEST.

The inquest on the body of deceased was opened on Monday by Mr. W. Baxter, in the Alexandra rooms, at the Working Lads' institute. Inspectors Helson and Chandler represented the police authorities. There was a large attendance of the general public in court and in the precincts of the institute, and the approaches thereto were guarded by a large number of constables. Mr. Collier, deputy-coroner, accompanied Mr. Wynne Baxter. The jury, having been formally sworn in, went to view the body at the mortuary in Montague-street, but all evidences of the outrage to which the deceased had been subjected were concealed. The clothing was also inspected, and subsequently the following evidence was taken: -

HOW THE BODY WAS FOUND.

John Davies, a carman, employed at Leadenhall market, and who had lodged at 29, Hanbury-street, for a fortnight, deposed: I occupy the HOW THE BODY WAS FOUND.

John Davies, a carman, employed at Leadenhall market, and who had lodged at 29, Hanbury-street, for a fortnight, deposed: I occupy the top front room on the third floor with my wife and three sons, who live with me. On Friday night I went to bed at eight o'clock, and my wife followed about half an hour later. My sons came to bed at different times, the last one at about a quarter to 11. There is a weaving shed window, or light, across the room. It was not open during the night. I was awake from three a.m. to five a.m. on Saturday, and then fell asleep until a quarter to six, when the clock at Spitalfields church struck. I had a cup of tea and went downstairs to the back yard. The house faces Hanbury-street, with one window on the ground floor and a front door at the side leading into a passage which runs through into the yard. There is a back door at the end of this passage opening into the yard. Neither of the doors was able to be locked, and I have never seen them locked. Any one who knows where the latch of the front door is could open it and go along the passage into the back yard.
When you went into the yard on Saturday morning was the yard door open or shut? - I found it shut. I cannot say whether it was latched - I cannot remember.
Will you describe the yard? - It is a large yard. Facing the door, on the opposite side, on my left as I was standing, there is a shed, in which Mrs. Richardson keeps her wood. In the right-hand corner there is a closet. The yard is separated from the next premises on both sides by close wooden fencing, about 5ft. 6in. high.
The Coroner: I hope the police will supply me with a plan. In the country, in cases of importance, I always have one.
Inspector Helson: We shall have one at the adjourned hearing.
Examination resumed: There was a little recess on the left. From the steps to the fence is about 3ft. There are three stone steps, unprotected, leading from the door to the yard, which is at a lower level than that of the passage. Directly I opened the door I saw a woman lying down in the left-hand recess, between the stone steps and the fence. She was on her back, with her head towards the house and her legs towards the wood shed. The clothes were much disarranged. I did not go into the yard, but left the house by the front door, and called the attention of two men to the circumstances. They work at Mr. Bailey's, a packing-case maker, of Hanbury-street. I do not know their names, but I know them by sight.
The Coroner: Have the names of these men been ascertained?
Inspector Chandler: I have made inquiries, but I cannot find the men.
The Coroner: They must be found.
Witness: They work at Bailey's; but I could not find them on Saturday, as I had my work to do.
The Coroner: Your work is of no consequence compared with this inquiry. You must find these men out, either with the assistance of the police or of my officer.
Examination resumed: Mr. Bailey's is three doors off 29, Hanbury-street, on the same side of the road. The two men were waiting outside the workshop. They came into the passage and saw the sight. They did not go into the yard, but ran to find a policeman. We all came out of the house together. I went to the Commercial-street police-station to report the case. No one in the house was informed by me of what I had discovered. I told the inspector at the police-station, and after a while I returned to Hanbury-street, but I did not re-enter the house. As I passed I saw constables there.
Have you ever seen the deceased before? - No.
Were you the first down in the house that morning? - No; there was a lodger named Thompson, who was called at half-past three.

THE HISTORY OF THE DECEASED.

Amelia Palmer, examined, stated: I live at 35, Dorset-street, Spitalfields, a common lodging-house. Off and on, I have stayed there three years. I am married to Henry Palmer, a dock labourer. He was foreman, but met with an accident at the beginning of the year. I go out charing. My husband gets a pension, having been in the army reserve. I knew the deceased very well, for quite five years. I saw the body on Saturday at the mortuary, and am quite sure that it is that of Annie Chapman. She was a widow, and her husband, Frederick Chapman, was a veterinary surgeon in Windsor. He died about 18 months ago. Deceased had lived apart from him for about four years or more. She lived in various places, principally in common lodging-houses in Spitalfields. I never knew her to have a settled home.
Has she lived at 30, Dorset-street? - Yes, about two years ago, with a man who made wire sieves, and at that time she was receiving 10s a week from her husband by post-office order, payable to her at the Commercial-road. This payment stopped about 18 months ago, and she then found, on inquiry of some relative, that her husband was dead. I am under the impression that she ascertained this fact either from a brother or sister of her husband in Oxford-street, Whitechapel. She was nicknamed Mrs. Sievey," because she lived with the sieve-maker. I know the man perfectly well, but don't know his name. I saw him last about 18 months ago, in the City, and he told me that he was living at Notting-hill. I saw deceased two or three times the week of the murder. On Monday she was standing in the road opposite 35, Dorset-street. She had been staying there, and had no bonnet on. She had a bruise on one of her temples - I think the right. I said, "How did you get that?" She said, "Yes, look at my chest." Opening her dress, she showed me a bruise. She said, "Do you know the woman?" and gave some name which I do not remember. She made me understand that it was a woman who goes about selling books. Both this woman and the deceased were acquainted with a man called "Harry the Hawker." Chapman told me that she was with some other man, Ted Stanley, on Saturday, Sept. 1. Stanley is a very respectable man. Deceased said she was with him at a beershop, 37, Commercial-street, at the corner of Dorset-street, where "Harry the Hawker" was with the woman. This man put down a two-shilling piece and the woman picked it up and put down a penny. There was some ill-feeling in consequence, and the same evening the book-selling woman met the deceased and injured her in the face and chest. When deceased told me this, she said she was living at 35, Dorset-street. On the Tuesday afternoon I saw Chapman again near to Spitalfields church. She said she felt no better, and she should go into the casual ward for a day or two. I remarked that she looked very pale, and asked her if she had had anything to eat. She replied, "No; I have not had a cup of tea today." I gave her twopence to get some, and told her not to get any rum, of which she was fond. I have seen her the worse for drink.
What did she do for a living? - She used to do crochet work, make antimacassars, and sell flowers. She was out late at night at times. On Fridays she used to go to Stratford to sell anything she had. I did not see her from Tuesday to the Friday afternoon, 7th inst., when I met her about five o'clock in Dorset-street. She appeared to be perfectly sober. I said, "Are you going to Stratford today?" She answered, "I feel too ill to do anything." I left her immediately afterwards, and returned about 10 minutes later, and found her in the same spot. She said, "It is of no use my going away. I shall have to go somewhere to get some money to pay my lodgings." She said no more, and that was the last time that I saw her. I understood that she had a sister and mother living at Brompton. but I do not think they were on friendly terms.
Do you know of any one that would be likely to have injured her? - No.
The Coroner (having read a communication handed to him by the police): It seems to be very doubtful whether the husband was a veterinary surgeon. He may have been a coachman.

CHAPMAN AT THE LODGING HOUSE.

Timothy Donovan, deputy at the lodging-house, 35, Dorset-street, Spitalfields, said: I have seen the body of the deceased, and have identified it as that of a woman who stayed at my house for the last four months. She was not there last week until Friday afternoon, between two and three o'clock. I was coming out of the office after getting up, and she asked me if she could go down in the kitchen, and I said "Yes," and asked her where she had been all the week. She replied that she had been in the infirmary, but did not say which.
A police-officer stated that the deceased had been in the casual ward.
Witness resumed: Deceased went down in the kitchen, and I did not see her again until half-past one or a quarter to two on Saturday morning. At that time I was sitting in the office, which faces the front door. She went into the kitchen. I sent the watchman's wife, who was in the office with me, downstairs to ask her husband about the bed. Deceased came upstairs to the office and said, "I have not sufficient money for my bed. Don't let it. I shan't be long before I am in."
How much was it? - Eightpence for the night. The bed she occupied, No. 29, was the one that she usually occupied. Deceased was then eating potatoes, and went out. She stood in the door two or three minutes, and then repeated, "Never mind, Tim; I shall soon be back. Don't let the bed." It was then about 10 minutes to two a.m. She left the house, going in the direction of Brushfield-street. John Evans, the watchman, saw her leave the house. I did not see her again.
Was she the worse for drink when you saw her last? - She had had enough; of that I am certain. She walked straight. Generally on Saturdays she was the worse for drink.
Where did you think she was going to get the money from? - I did not know. She used to come and stay at the lodging-house on Saturdays, with a man - a pensioner - of soldierly appearance, whose name I do not know.
Have you seen her with other men? - At other times she has come with other men, and I have refused her.
You only allow the women at your place one husband? - The pensioner told me not to let her a bed if she came with any other man. She did not come with a man that night. I never saw her with any man that week.
In answer to the jury witness said the beds were double at 8d per night, and as a rule deceased occupied one by herself.
The Coroner: When was the pensioner last with deceased at the lodging-house? - On Sunday, Sept. 2. I cannot say whether they left together. I have heard the deceased say, "Tim, wait a minute. I am just going up the street to see if I can see him." She added that he was going to draw his pension. This occurred on Saturday, Aug. 25, at three in the morning.
Examination continued: I never heard deceased call the man by any name. He was between 40 and 45 years of age, about 5ft. 6in. or 5ft. 8in. in height. Sometimes he would come dressed as a dock labourer; at other times he had a gentlemanly appearance. His hair was rather dark. I believe she always used to find him at the top of the street. Deceased was on good terms with the lodgers. About Tuesday, Aug. 28, she and another woman had a row in the kitchen. I saw them both outside. As far as I know she was not injured at that time. I heard from the watchman that she had a clout. I noticed a day or two afterwards, on the Thursday, that she had a slight touch of a black eye. She said, "Tim, this is lovely," but did not explain how she got it. The bruise was to be seen on Friday last. I know the other woman, but not her name. Her husband hawks laces and other things.
John Evans, night watchman at 35, Dorset-street, identified the deceased as having lived at the lodging-house, and said: I last saw her there on Saturday morning, and she left at about a quarter to two o'clock. I was sent down in the kitchen to see her, and she said she had not sufficient money. When she went upstairs I followed her, and as she left the house, I watched her go through a court called Paternoster-street, into Brushfield-street, and then turn towards Spitalfields church. Deceased was the worse for drink, but not badly so. She came in soon after 12 (midnight), when she said she had been over to her sister's in Vauxhall. She sent one of the lodgers for a pint of beer, and then went out again, returning shortly before a quarter to two. She had been living a rough night life. She associated with a man, a pensioner, every Saturday, and this individual called on Saturday at 2:30 p.m. and inquired for the deceased. He had heard something about her death, and came to see if it were true. I do not know his name or address. When I told him what had occurred he went straight out, without saying a word, towards Spitalfields churh. I did not see deceased, and this man leave the house on Sunday, September 2.
Did you see the deceased and another woman have a row in the kitchen? - Yes, on Thursday, Aug. 30. Deceased and a woman known as "Eliza," at 11:30 a.m., quarrelled about a piece of soap, and Chapman received a blow in the chest. I noticed that she had a slight black eye. There are marks on the body in a similar position.
By the Jury: I have never heard anyone threaten her, nor express any fear of anyone. I have never heard of any one of the women in the lodging-house say that they had been threatened.
The Foreman: Did you ever hear anyone threaten her? - No.
The Coroner: Then, gentlemen, we will leave it here, and adjourn to Wednesday.

SECOND DAY.

Mr. Fontain Smith, a respectable man of about 35 years of age, was the first witness on Wednesday. He said he was a printer's warehouseman, and a brother of the deceased Annie Chapman. He evidently felt somewhat unnerved, and gave his evidence in a low tone of voice. He said he had seen the body and recognised it as that of his eldest sister. She was the widow of John Chapman, a coachman, who have lived at Windsor. She had been separated from her husband for about three years. She was 47 years old. He saw her alive a fortnight ago in Commercial-street, where he met her promiscuously. Her husband died at Christmas, 1886. When he met her she recognised him first, and he gave her a few shillings. She did not say where she was living, or what she was doing. She said she wanted money for lodging. He knew nothing about her associates.
James Kent, living at 20, Drew's-blocks, Shadwell, packing-case maker, said: I work for Mr. Bailey, 23, Hanbury-street. I go to work at six o'clock. On Saturday I arrived at the place about ten minutes past six. The gate was open, but I waited a minute or two as I usually do. While waiting an elderly man called me. I believe his name is Davies. He came out of his house, and ran into the road. He said, "Men, come here." I and James Green thereupon went to 29, Hanbury-street. There were others standing about. I went to the passage and saw a woman lying in the yard between the backdoor steps and partition. Witness then described the condition of the body.
James Green, also a packing-case maker, working for Mr. Bailey, said: On Saturday I arrived at Hanbury-street about 10 minutes past six. I accompanied Kent to 29, Hanbury-street. I went as far as the back door, and I left the premises with him. I did not see anyone touch the body. I saw Inspector Chandler arrive. I was then on the steps of our landing. No one was in the yard, but there was a mob round the door. When the inspector arrived the body was in the same state as when I first saw it.

THE LANDLADY AT HANBURY STREET.

Mrs. Amelia Richardson, 29, Hanbury-street, Spitalfields, said: I rent half the house in Hanbury-street. I carry on business there and employ there my son, aged 37, and a man named Francis Tyler. Tyler should have come to work at six o'clock, but he did not come until eight. I sent for him. He was often late when work was slack. My son also works at the market. My son went through our yard about five o'clock, but there was nothing then. About six o'clock my grandson, Thomas Richardson, aged 14, went down to see what was the matter, as there was so much noise in the passage. He came back and said, "Oh, mother, there is a woman murdered." I went down and saw the deceased in the yard. There was no one in the yard at the time, but there were people in the passage. Soon afterwards a constable arrived and took possession of the place. So far as I know, he was the first person to go into the yard. I occupy the first-floor front. My grandson also slept in the same room. I went to bed at half-past nine. I was very wakeful, and was awake half the night. I woke at three, and only dozed afterwards. I heard no noise during the night. The first-floor back was occupied by Mr. Walker, an old gentleman, with his wife and son, 27 years of age. The son is weak-minded and inoffensive. On the ground-floor there are two rooms, occupied by Mrs. Hardiman and her son, aged 16. Mrs. Hardiman keeps a cat's-meat shop. The son goes out with the cat's-meat. I occupy the back parlour for cooking, and on Friday night I had a prayer meeting there. When I went to bed I locked that room up. It was still locked in the morning. John Davies and his family occupy the third-floor front. An old lady occupies the back room on that floor. The house is practically open all night, and although I have property there I am not afraid. There are never any robberies there. I am not the owner of the house. I can hear any one going through the passage, but I heard nobody on Saturday.
A Juryman: You mean to say you could hear them if you were awake?
Witness: Yes. Of course there is noise and bustle on market mornings. I heard no cries on Saturday.
By the Coroner: It is customary for people to go through the house. They go to the backyard, but I always hear them. Some people go through who have no business there.
Harriet Hardiman, a lady past middle age, living on the ground-floor front room of 29, Hanbury-street, said: I slept very soundly all night. My son in the morning went out to see what the noise was in the passage. He came back and said, "Mother, don't upset yourself. It is not a fire; it is a woman that has been killed in the yard." I did not go out. I often heard people go through the passage into the yard. I never saw the deceased woman in my life - not to my knowledge.
John Richardson, John-street, a porter in Spitalfields-market, said: On Saturday I was at 29, Hanbury-street about 4:45 a.m. or 4:50 a.m. I went there to see that all was all right. I only go on market mornings, because I am out early. Some months ago the cellar was broken into. The front door was closed. I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard. I did not go into the yard, I opened the yard door and sat on the steps to cut off a piece of leather from my boot. I used an old table-knife to cut the leather. I had been cutting up carrots for my rabbit, and I put the knife into my pocket. I do not usually carry it about with me in my pocket. It must have been a mistake on my part. I did not go into the yard, and went away. The yard door closes itself. I shut the front door when I went away. I was there altogether about two minutes. It was not quite light, but I could see all over the place. I could not have failed to have noticed the deceased, had she been there then. I afterwards saw the body. That was after the doctor had come. I heard of the murder when I was in the market. I could see the cellar-door without going into the yard. The padlock was on it all right. That was the sole object I had in going there. I sometimes look in if I am going home late at night. When I sat on the steps I was close to where the woman was found. I have been there at all hours of the night.
Have you seen any strangers there? - Lots - plenty of them.
At all hours? - Yes, men and women. I turned them out. I have seen them lying on the landing.
Do I understand that they go there for an immoral purpose? - Yes; I have caught them in the act.
Witness then left the court to fetch his old table knife.
Mrs. Richardson was brought in again from the corridor, to which she had retired, and in reply to questions from the coroner, said: I never have lost anything from my house, and I leave my door open. I once missed a saw and a hammer from the cellar, but that was a long time ago. I used to lock the cellar, but they broke the padlock. That was done in the early morning. My son looks round on market mornings.
Had you any suspicion that the yard or any part of the house was at any time used for immoral purposes? - No, sir.
Did you say anything about a leather apron? - Yes, my son wears one when he works in the cellar.
The Coroner: It is rather a dangerous thing to wear, is it not? - Witness: Yes.
On Thursday, Sept. 6, I found my son's leather apron in the cellar mildewed. He had not used it for a month. I took it and put it under the tap in the yard, and left it there. It was found there on Saturday morning by the police, who took charge of it. The apron had remained there from Thursday to Saturday.
Was this tap used? - Yes, by all of us in the house. The apron was on the stones. The police took away an empty box, used for nails, and the steel out of a boy's gaiter. There was a pan of clean water next to the tap when I went in the yard at six o'clock on Saturday. It was there on Friday night at eight o'clock, and it looked as if it had not been disturbed.
Did you ever know of strange women being found on the first-floor landing? - No.
Your son had never spoken to you about it? - No.

"LEATHER APRON" AS A WITNESS.

John Piser was then called. He said: I live at 22, Mulberry-street, Commercial-road East. I am a shoemaker.
Are you known by the nickname of "Leather Apron?" - Yes, sir.
Where were you on Friday night last? - I was at 22, Mulberry-street. On Thursday, the 6th inst., I arrived there.
From where? - From the west end of town.
The Coroner: I am afraid we shall have to have a better address than that presently.
What time did you reach 22, Mulberry-street? - Shortly before 11 p.m.
Who lives at 22, Mulberry-street? - My brother and sister-in-law and my stepmother. I remained indoors there.
Until when? Until I was arrested by Serjeant Thicke, on Monday last at nine a.m.
You say you never left the house during that time? - I never left the house.
Why were you remaining indoors? - Because my brother advised me.
You were the subject of suspicion? - I was the object of a false suspicion.
You remained on the advice of your friends? - Yes; I am telling you what I did.
The Coroner: It was not the best advice that you could have had. You have been released, and are not now in custody? - I am not.
Piser: I wish to vindicate my character to the world at large.
The Coroner: I have called you in your own interests, partly with the object of giving you an opportunity of doing so. Can you tell us where you were on Thursday, Aug. 30?
Witness (after considering): In the Holloway-road. - You had better say exactly where you were. It is important to account for your time from that Thursday to the Friday morning.
What time, may I ask?
The Coroner: It was the week before you came to Mulberry-street.
Witness: I was staying at a common lodging-house called the Round house, in the Holloway-road.
Did you sleep the night there? - Yes.
At what time did you go in? - On the night of the London dock fire, I went in about two or a quarter-past. It was on the Friday morning.
When did you leave the lodging-house? - At 11 a.m. on the same day. I saw on the placards, "Another Horrible Murder."
Where were you before two o'clock on Friday morning? - At 11 p.m. on Thursday I had my supper at the Round house.
Did you go out? - Yes; as far as the Seven Sisters-road, and then returned towards Highbury way, down the Holloway-road. Turning, I saw the reflection of a fire. Coming as far as the church in the Holloway-road I saw two constables and the lodging-house keeper talking together. There might have been one or two constables; I cannot say which. I asked a constable where the fire was, and he said it was a long way off. I asked him where he thought it was, and he replied, "Down by the Albert docks." It was then about half-past one, to the best of my recollection. I went as far as Highbury station on the same side of the way, returned, and then went into the lodging-house.
Did any one speak to you about being so late? - No. I paid the night watchman. I asked him if my bed was let, and he said, "They are let by 11 o'clock. You don't think they are to let to this hour." I paid him 4d for another bed. I stayed up smoking on the form of the kitchen, on the right hand side near the fireplace, and then went to bed.
You got up at 11 o'clock? - Yes. The day man came, and told us to get up, as he wanted to make the bed. I got up and dressed, and went down into the kitchen.
Is there anything else you want to say? - Nothing.
When you said the West-end of town did you mean Holloway? - No; another lodging-house in Peter-street, Westminster.
The Coroner: It is only fair to say that the witness's statements can be corroborated.
William Thicke, detective serjeant, deposed: Knowing that "Leather Apron" was suspected of being concerned in the murder, on Monday morning I arrest Piser at 22, Mulberry-street. I have known him by the name of "Leather Apron" for many years.
When people in the neighbourhood speak of "Leather Apron" do they mean Piser? - They do.
He has been released from custody? - He was released last night at 9:30.
John Richardson (recalled) produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.
By the Jury: My mother has heard me speak of people having been in the house. She has heard them herself.
The Coroner: I think we will detain this knife for the present.

THE POLICE WOULD NOT COME.

Henry John Holland, a boxmaker, stated: As I was passing 29, Hanbury-street, on my way to work in Chiswell-street, at about eight minutes past six on Saturday, I spoke to two of Bailey's men. An elderly man came out of the house and asked us to have a look at his back yard. I went through the passage and saw the deceased lying in the yard by the back door. I did not touch the body. I then went for a policeman in Spitalfields-market. The officer told me that he could not come. I went outside and could find no constable. Going back to the house I saw an inspector run up with a young man, at about 20 minutes past six o'clock. I told the first policeman that it was a similar case to Buck's-row, and he referred me to two policemen outside the market, but I could not find them. I afterwards complained of the policeman's conduct at the Commercial-street police-station the same afternoon.
The Coroner: There does not seem to have been much delay. The inspector says there are certain spots where constables are stationed with instructions not to leave them. Their duty is to send some one else.

THIRD DAY.

On Thursday Joseph Chandler, police-inspector, stated: About ten minutes to six o'clock on Saturday morning I was on duty in Commerical-street, at the corner of Hanbury-street. I saw several men running up Hanbury-street, who beckoned to me. One of them said, "Another woman has been murdered." I at once went with him to the house 29, Hanbury-street. I went through the passage to the yard. There were several people about, but not in the yard. I saw the body of a woman lying on the ground on her back. Her head was towards the back wall of the house, about two feet back, at the bottom of the steps. Her face was turned on the right side, with the left hand resting on the left breast, which was not exposed. The right hand was lying down by her side. The legs were drawn up, and the clothing above the knees. A portion of the intestines, still connected with the body, was lying above the right shoulder, with some pieces of skin. There were also some pieces of skin lying on the left side of the head above the left shoulder.
Was the body lying parallel with the fencing? - With the fencing dividing the two yards. I remained there in charge myself, and sent for the divisional surgeon, for the ambulance, and further assistance. When constables came I removed all parties from the passage, and saw that nobody touched the body until the doctor arrived. I obtained some sacking from some of the neighbours there to cover the body before the arrival of the doctor. After the body had been removed, I examined the yard, and I found some pieces of coarse muslin, a small-tooth comb, and a pocket hair-comb in leather case. There was lying near the feet of the woman a small piece of paper; a portion of an envelope I also found near her head. There was a seal, and on the flap there were in embossed letters the words, "Sussex regiment." On the other side of the envelope was the letter M in writing. It was in a man's handwriting. There was no postage-stamp, but there was a post-office stamp, "London, 23rd August, 1888." There was another stamp, but it was indistinct. On the front there was also written the letters "S.P." There were no other marks.
Did you find anything else in the yard? - There was a leather apron lying in the yard saturated with water, almost two feet from the water tap. That was shown to the doctor. There was a nail-box - a box commonly used by case makers for holding their nails. It was empty. There was also a flat piece of steel, which has since been identified by Mrs. Richardson as her property. It was lying close to the body. The nail-box has also been identified by Mrs. Richardson as her property.
Are the palings of the yard strongly erected? - No; very temporarily.
Would they support the weight of a man getting over them? - Well, they might.
Was there any evidence of anybody having recently got over them? - any breakage, or anything of that sort? - No, not in the least. There have been some breakages in the neighbouring fences since. I examined the adjoining yards at the time, and none of the palings were then broken. The palings in the yard, near the head of the body, were stained with blood. There were marks discovered on Tuesday afternoon on the wall of the house of No. 25. They have been seen by Dr. Phillips.
Were there any drops of blood elsewhere outside the yard? - No; a careful examination had been made, but no traces have been found. The blood stains were in the neighbourhood of the body only. There were also a few spots of blood on the back wall of the house at the bend of the body about two feet from the ground. They were spots rather than splashes. They were all together.
Did you search the body? - I searched the clothing at the mortuary. The pocket was worn under the skirt (Witness produced this pocket, which was one of coarse material, with two divisions.) It was torn down the front, and also at the side. It was quite empty. The dress was a black skirt. There was a little blood on the outside, at the back, caused by the woman having lain amongst the blood. There were also two petticoats.
The Foreman: Some evidence has been given about an envelope, with the name of a regiment upon it, and something was said about a pensioner named Stanley. Are you going to produce that person?
The Witness: We have not been able to find him.
Did you accompany the body to the mortuary? - No, sir; Serjeant Baugham, 31 H, did so.
Edward Baugham, serjeant of police, 31 H, deposed: On Saturday last I conveyed the body of deceased from 29, Hanbury-street, to the Whitechapel mortuary on a police ambulance.
Are you sure you took every portion of the body away with you? - Yes, sir.
Where did you deposit the body? - I placed it in the shed where the shells are, but still on the stretcher of the ambulance. I did not remain with it till the doctor arrived. I remained in charge until Inspector Chandler arrived. Serjeant Thicke viewed the body and described it to me, and I took the description down in writing. Two females, who came from a lodging-house in 35, Dorset-street, were also present; but I did not see them touch either the clothing or the body.
Inspector Chandler (recalled): When did you reach the mortuary? - A few minutes after seven o'clock.
Did the body appear to have been disturbed at all? - No. I did not wait until the doctor arrived, but I left Constable Barnes, 376 H, outside to assist the mortuary keeper in taking care of the body.
Robert Marne, sworn and examined: I am an inmate of the Whitehapel Union workhouse, and have charge of the mortuary. On Saturday last I received the body of the deceased at the mortuary about seven o'clock in the morning. I remained at the mortuary until Dr. Phillips arrived, about two o'clock. The door of the mortuary was locked during the time except when two nurses from the infirmary came and undressed the body. The police looked at the clothing before the body was taken off the stretcher. I am sure no one touched the bodies until the nurses did so. I picked up a handkerchief which came off the body.
Timothy Donovan, deputy of the lodging-house at 29, Hanbury-street, said: I recognise the handkerchief produced as one which the deceased used to wear. She bought it of a lodger about a week or a fortnight ago. She was wearing it on the Saturday morning when she left the lodging-house.

THE DOCTOR'S EVIDENCE.

Dr. George Bagster Phillips deposed: I have been divisional police surgeon for 23 years. On Saturday last I wall called by the police at 6:20 a.m. to go to 29, Hanbury-street. I arrived there by half-past six. I found the dead body of a female in the possession of the police, lying in the back yard on her back, on the left hand of the steps that lead from the passage of the house into the yard. The head was about six inches in front of the level of the bottom step, and her feet were towards a shed, which proved to be one containing wood, at the bottom of the yard. The left arm was placed across the left breast, the legs were drawn up, the feet resting on the ground, and the knees turned outwards. The face was swollen and turned on the right side. The tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The tongue was evidently much swollen. The teeth were perfect, so far as the first molar top and bottom, and very fine teeth they were. The small intestines, and a flap of the wall of the belly, together with the cover of the intestines, were lying on the right side of the body, on the ground above the right shoulder, attached to the remaining portion of the intestines inside the body by a coil of intestine. Two flaps of the wall of the belly were lying in a large quantity of blood, above the left shoulder. The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat under the intestines that remained in the body. I noticed that the throat was dissevered deeply, and that the incision through the skin was jaded, and reached right round the neck. On the back wall of the house, between the steps and the palings which bounded the yard on the left side, about 18 inches from the ground, there were about six patches of blood varying in size from a sixpenny piece to a small point, and on the wooden palings between the yard in question and the next there were smears of blood corresponding to where the head of the deceased lay. This was about 14 inches in front and immediately above the part where the blood lay that had flowed from the neck, which blood was well clotted. Having received your instructions, sir, soon after two on Saturday afternoon I went to the labour yard of Whitechapel union for the purpose of further examining the body and making the usual examination. I was surprised to find that the body had been stripped and was lying ready on the table for my examination. That examination I proceeded to make, and here must state, and I hope the jury will take notice of it, that it was under great disadvantage that I did it. As on many occasions I have met with the same difficulty, I now raise my protest as I have before, that members of my profession should be called upon to perform their duties under these inadequate circumstances.
The Coroner: The mortuary is not fitted for a post-mortem examination? - There is no adequate convenience. At certain seasons of the year it is most dangerous to the operator.
The witness, continuing his evidence, said: The body had evidently been attended to since its removal to the mortuary - probably partially washed. I noticed the same protrusion of the tongue, a bruise over the right malar bone, and reaching over the temple and the upper eyelid. There was a bruise under the clavicle, and two distinct bruises (each the size of the top of a man's thumb) on the forepart of the chest. There was an old scar of long standing on the left side of the frontal bone. The stiffness was more noticeable on the left side, and especially in the fingers, which were partly closed. There was an abrasion over the bend of the first joint of the ring finger. There were distinct markings of a ring or rings - probably the latter - and there were small sores on the fingers. The head being opened showed that the membranes of the brain were opaque, and the veins and tissues coated with blood of a dark character. The front had been severed, and the entire structure from the body portion of the vertebral or spinal column had been entirely separated. The incisions of the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side of the neck on a line with the angle of the jaw, carried entirely round, and again to front of the neck, and ending at a point about midway between the jaw and the sternal or breast-bone on the right side. There were two distinct cuts on the body of the vertebrae on the left side of the spine. They were parallel to each other, and separated about half an inch. There were appearances as if an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck. There are various other mutilations of the body, and I am of opinion that they occurred subsequently to the death of the woman, and subsequently to the large escape of blood from the neck.
The witness said he was prepared, in giving his opinion as to the cause of death, to go into further details as to the mutilation, but did not think they were of a nature fit for publication.
The coroner observed that the object of the inquiry was to ascertain not only the cause of death, but the means by which it was effected. Supposing any one were charged with the crime, the details would have to come out at the trial, and it might be a matter for comment that the same evidence was not given at the inquest.
The Witness: I am entirely in your hands.
The Coroner: We will postpone that for the present. You can give your opinion as to how the death was caused.
The Witness: From these appearances I am of opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death, and that death arose from syncope, or failure of the heart's action in consequence of the loss of blood.
What sort of instrument must have been used? Would it have been the same for the abdomen as the throat? - Very probably. It must have been a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, and must have been at least six to eight inches in length, probably longer. The appearance of the wounds did not give me the impression that they had been caused by such an instrument as a bayonet or sword-bayonet.
Would such an instrument as a medical man uses for post-mortem purposes have caused them? - Yes, but the ordinary post-mortem case would probably not contain such an instrument.
Would any instrument that a slaughter-man uses have caused them? - Yes, well ground down.
Would the knife of a cobbler, or of one employed in the leather trade, have caused them? - I think the blade of the knives used in the leather-trade would not be long enough.

PARTS OF THE BODY MISSING.

Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed? - I think there was. There were indications of it; my own impression is that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of the haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the hast.
Is the whole of the body there? - No, sir; the absent portions being parts of the abdomen.
Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.
You do not think that those parts could have been lost in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. They were excised from the body, but they might have been lost.
How long had deceased been dead when you first saw the body? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more, but it is right in connection with that opinion to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.
Was there in your opinion any evidence of a struggle? - No, sir, not about the body of the woman, but you must not forget the smearing of the blood upon the palings.
In your opinion, did she enter the yard alive? - I am positive of it. I may mention that after I made a thorough search of the passage and the approach to the house I saw no marks of blood, which must have been traceable if she had not entered the yard alive. That was when I visited the premises in the morning. I discovered the apron, and there were no evidences of blood upon it. It had the appearance to my eye of not having been unfolded recently. I was shown some stains on the wall at 25, Hanbury-street on Wednesday morning. To the eye of a novice it no doubt looks like blood, but I have not been able to trace any signs of it. I have not quite finished my investigation into the last circumstance, but I am almost convinced that I shall not find that it is blood.
We have not had any result of your examination of the internal organs; were they diseased? - Yes, but that had nothing to do with the cause of death. She was far advanced in disease of the lungs and of the membranes of the brain. The disease of the lungs was of long standing. The stomach contained a meal of food, but there were no signs of her having indulged largely in alcohol. Although she was fatty, I think there were signs that she had been badly fed. I am convinced she had not taken any strong alcohol some hours before her death.
The Coroner: None of these injuries, I suppose, were self-inflicted? - The marks on the face were evidently recent, particularly about the chin. The bruises in front of the temple and on the chest were of longer standing, probably of days. I am clearly of opinion that the person who cut the deceased's throat took hold of her by the chin, and then commenced the incision from left to right.
The Coroner: Could that be done so instantaneously that a person could not cry out?
Witness: By pressure on the throat no doubt it would be possible.
Mary Elizabeth Simonds, a resident nurse at the Whitechapel infirmary, stated that on the morning of the murder she attended at the mortuary with the senior nurse. They stripped the body of the deceased, and washed off the stains of blood. There was some blood about the chest, and it seemed to be run down from the throat. She found the pocket, which had been produced, tied round the waist of the deceased. There were no tears or cuts in the clothes.
Inspector Chandler subsequently came forward, and said he did not instruct the nurses to strip and wash the body.
The inquest was further adjourned till Wednesday next, at two o'clock.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, September 16, 1888, Page 4

THE CASE OF ANNIE CHAPMAN.

The adjourned inquest respecting the death of Annie Chapman, whose body was found in a frightfully mutilated state in a back yard of the house, No. 29, Hanbury-street, Whitehapel, on Saturday morning, Sept. 8th, was resumed on Wednesday by Mr. Wynne Baxter and a jury, in the Working Lads' institute, Whitechapel-road.
Eliza Cooper deposed: I lodge at 25, Dorset-street, Spitalfields. I have done so for the last five months. I knew the deceased. I had a quarrel with her the Tuesday before she was murdered. On the previous Saturday she brought Mr. Stanley into 25, Dorset-street. The deceased came into the kitchen, and asked the people there to give her some soap. They told her to ask "Liza." She came to me, and I opened the locker and gave her some. She gave it to Stanley, who went outside and washed himself in the lavatory. When she came back, I asked for the soap, but she did not return it. She said, "I will see you by-and-bye." Mr. Stanley gave her 2s., and paid for the bed for two nights. I saw no more of her that night. Stanley treated me. I saw her on the Wednesday. When I met her in the kitchen, I said, "Perhaps you will return my soap." She threw a half-penny on the table, and said, "Go and get a half-pennyworth of soap." We got quarrelling, and we went out to the Ringers public-house, and continued the quarrel. She slapped my face, and said, "Think yourself lucky I did not do more." I struck her in the left eye, I believe, and then in the chest. I afterwards saw that the blow had marked her face.
When was the last time you saw her alive? - On the Wednesday night, in the Ringers.
Was she wearing rings? - Yes, she was wearing three rings on the third finger of the left hand. They were all brass. She bought them from a black man.
Had she ever a gold wedding ring to your knowledge? - No; not since I have known her. I have known her about 15 months. I know she associated with Stanley, "Harry the Hawker," and several others.
The Foreman of the Jury: Are there any of those with whom she associated missing? - I could not tell.
A Juryman: Was she on the same relations with them as she was with Stanley? - No, sir. She used to bring them casually into the lodging-house.

EXTRAORDINARY MEDICAL EVIDENCE.

Dr. Baxter Phillips, the divisional police surgeon, was recalled, but before he was further examined,
The Coroner said: It appears to me necessary that all the evidence that you ascertained from the post-mortem examination should be on the records of the court for various reasons which I need not enumerate. However painful it may be, it is necessary in the interests of justice.
Dr. Phillips: I have not had any notice of that, sir. I should have been glad if notice had been given me, because I should have been better prepared to give the evidence; however, I will do my best.
The Coroner: Would you like to postpone it?
Dr. Phillips: No, I have my notes here, but they are in another man's handwriting. I still think that it is a very great pity - of course, I bow to your decision - but there are matters which have come to light now which show the wisdom of the course pursued on the last occasion, and I cannot help reiterating my regret that you have come to a different conclusion. On the last occasion, just before I left the court, I mentioned to you that there were reasons why I thought the perpetrator of the act upon the woman's throat had caught hold of her chin, and it was in consequence of being imperfectly able to read the notes that I was unable to come to that conclusion. I should like to follow that up.
The Coroner: Certainly.
Dr. Phillips then proceeded with his evidence. On the lower jaw were three scratches, one and a half to two inches below the lower lobe of the ear, going in a contrary direction to the incision in the throat. These were of recent date. There was a bruise in the buccal region, on the right cheek, and at a corresponding point with the abrasions on the right side was a well-marked bruise. I watched these bruises, and they became much more distinct, whereas the bruises mentioned in my last evidence remained the same. Those were the indications that led me to the conclusion I mentioned in my previous evidence.
The Coroner: What conclusion?
Witness: That the perpetrator of the crime seized hold of the chin in making the incision in the neck. The further details I could give are only fit for yourself (the coroner) and the jury. To make public such details would simply be disgusting.
The Coroner: I see ladies and boys in court, and I think it right to say that at all events they are bound to leave.
The persons referred to left the court.
The Coroner: We are bound to take all the evidence in the case.
The evidence given by the witness on the previous occasion having been read over.
Dr. Phillips proceeded to give details of the post-mortem examination he had made on the body. He stated that two important abdominal parts were missing. He repeated his opinion, derived from the character of the incisions, that the length of the instrument with which they were made must have been at least five or six inches, and that the incisions indicated a certain amount of anatomical knowledge. The womb was entirely removed, and the nature of the incisions and other circumstances indicated that the object of the operator was to obtain possession of it.
The Coroner: Can you give any idea how long it would take to produce all the injuries that were found on the body of the deceased?
Witness: I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour. The whole inference seems to be that the operation was performed to enable the man to obtain possession of the womb.
The Coroner: Have you anything further to add with reference to the stains on the wall?
Witness: I have not been able to obtain any further traces of blood.
The Foreman of the Jury: Is there anything to indicate that the crime in the case of Nicholls was perpetrated with the same object?
The Coroner: There is a difference in this respect, at all events - that the doctor is of opinion that, in the case of Nicholls, the injuries to the abdomen were made first.
The Foreman: It has occurred to the jury whether the eyes of the deceased would retain any impression of the murderer.
Dr. Phillips: I have no particular opinion upon that point myself. I was asked about it very early in the case, and I gave my opinion that the operation would be useless, especially in this case; and also as to the use of a bloodhound, which was suggested. It may be my ignorance, but I think the blood of the murdered woman would be more likely to be traced than the murderer. These questions were submitted to me by the police very early; I think within 24 hours of the murder of the woman.
The Coroner: Were the injuries to the neck such as might have caused insensibility?
The Witness: Yes; they were consistent with partial suffocation, taken in conjunction with the swollen tongue and turgid nails.

A SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCE.

Elizabeth Long deposed: I live in Church-row, Whitechapel. I am married to James Long, a cart minder. On Saturday, Sept. 8, about half-past five o'clock in the morning, I was passing down Hanbury-street, from home, on my way to Spitalfields market. I knew the time, because I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got up to them. I passed 29, Hanbury-street. On the right-hand side, the same side as the house, I saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement talking. His back was turned towards Brick-lane, and the woman's was towards the market. They were standing only a few yards nearer Brick-lane from 29, Hanbury-street. I saw the woman's face. I saw the deceased in the mortuary after death. I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased. I did not see the man's face, but I noticed that he was dark. He was wearing a brown deerstalker hat. I think he had on a dark coat, though I am not certain. By the look of him he seemed to me a man over 40 years of age. He appeared to me to be a little taller than deceased.
Did he look like a working man, or what?
- He looked like a foreigner.
Did he look like a dock labourer, or what?
- I should say he looked what I should call shabby-genteel.
Were they talking loudly? - They were talking loudly. I overheard him say to her, "Will you?" and she said, "Yes." That is all I heard, and I heard this as I passed. I left them standing there, and I did not look back, so I cannot say where they went to.
Did they appear to be sober? - I saw nothing to indicate that either of them were the worse for drink.
Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - I see lots of them standing talking there.
At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.
What time did you leave home? - I got out about five o'clock, and I reached the Spitalfields market a few minutes after half-past five.

EVIDENCE OF "THE PENSIONER."

Edward Stanley, 1, Osborn-street, Spitalfields, deposed: I am a brick-layer's labourer.
Are you known by the name of the Pensioner? - Yes.
Did you know the deceased? - I did.
And you sometimes visited her? - Yes.
At 35, Dorset-street? - About once there, or twice, something like that. Other times I have met her elsewhere.
When did you last see her alive? - On Sunday, the 2nd September, between one and three o'clock in the afternoon.
Was she wearing rings when you saw her? - Yes, I believe two. I could not say on which finger, but they were on one of her fingers.
What sort of rings were they - what was the metal? - Brass, I should think. They were of the colour of brass.
Do you know anyone she was on bad terms with? - No one, as far as I know. I heard nothing. She had some bruises on her face when I last saw her - a slight black eye, which some other woman had given her. I did not take much notice of it. She told me something about having had a quarrel. It is possible that I may have seen deceased after September 2, as I was doing nothing all that week. If I did see her I only casually met her, and we might have had a glass of beer together.
The Coroner: The deputy of the lodging-house said he was not to let the bed to the deceased with any other man but you? - It was not from me he received those orders. I have seen it described that the man used to come on the Saturday night, and remain until the Monday morning. I have never done so.
A Juror: You were supposed to be the pensioner.
The Coroner: It must be some other man?
Witness: I cannot say that; I am only speaking for myself.
Are you a pensioner? - Can I object to answer that question, sir? It does not touch on anything here.
Coroner: It was said the man was with her on one occasion when going to receive his pension? - It could not be me, sir. It has been stated all over Europe that it has been me.
It will affect your financial position all over Europe when it is known that you are not a pensioner? - It will affect my financial position in this way, sir, in that I am a loser by having to come here for nothing, and may get discharged for not being at my work.
Were you ever in the Royal Sussex regiment? - Never, sir. I am a law-abiding man, sir, and interfere with no person who does not interfere with me.
The Coroner: Call the deputy.
The witness asked meanwhile whether he should have remuneration for coming to give evidence.
The Coroner: Yes, if you wait long enough you are entitled to a fee.

STANLEY CONTRADICTED.

Timothy Donovan, deputy of the lodging-house, who gave evidence formerly, was recalled and said Stanley, the last witness, used to come with the deceased on Saturday and stay till Monday.
Was it he who told you not to let the bed to the deceased with another man to sleep with her? - Yes; on the second Saturday he told me.
How many times have you seen him there? - I should think five or six Saturdays.
When was he last there? - On the Saturday before the woman's death. He stayed until the Monday. He payed for one night, and the woman afterwards came down and paid for the other.
The Coroner: What have you got to say to that, Mr. Stanley? Is that as good as your pension?
Stanley: You can cross it all out, sir.
Cross your evidence out? - No, sir, but his.
It is incorrect? - It is all wrong. I went to Gosport on August 6, and remained there until Sept. 1.
Stanley added, while the coroner was writing down his last statement: You have not done with me yet apparently. You are talking to an honest man when you are talking to me, sir.
The Foreman of the Jury: Why, you were with the deceased on Sept. 1?
The Coroner: He returned on that day.
The Foreman: You said you were there on the Saturday previous?
Stanley: No; I have not said so.
Were you there when the quarrel was? - No; I had not any quarrel with her.
Had you known her at Windsor at all? - No; she told me she knew someone about Windsor, and that she once lived there.
You did not know her there? - No; I have only known her about two years. I have never been to Windsor.
Did you call there on Saturday, the 8th, after the murder? - Yes; I was told by a shoeblack it was she who was murdered, and I went to the lodging-house to ask if it was the fact. I was surprised, and went away.
Did you not give any information to the police that you knew her? - You might have volunteered evidence? - I did volunteer evidence. I went voluntarily to Commercial-street police-station, and told them what I knew. I did not want to stay, as it was always a loss to me to be away.
The Coroner: They did not tell you that the police wanted you? - Not on the 8th, but afterwards. They told me the police wanted to see me after I had been to the police. I have given you all the facts.

A NEIGHBOUR WHO HEARD A NOISE.

Albert Cadosch deposed: I live at 27, Hanbury-street. My occupation is that of a carpenter; 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, the 8th Sept., I got up about a quarter-past five in the morning. I went through the yard of my house to the far end of the yard furthest from 29. It was then about 20 minutes past five. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I went indoors, but I came back again into the yard about three or four minutes afterwards, and proceeded to the end of the yard. In coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something seemed to touch the fence suddenly.
Did you look to see what it was? - No, sir. I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields church.
William Stevens, 35, Dorset-street, called and examined: I am a painter. I knew the deceased. I last saw her alive at 20 minutes past 12 on the morning of Saturday, Sept. 8. She was in the kitchen. She was not the worse for drink.
Had she got any rings on her fingers? - Yes, sir. Shown a piece of an envelope, witness said he believed it was the same as she picked up near the fireplace. I did not notice the crest, but it was about that size, and it had a red postmark on it. She pulled a pill-box out of her pocket, and put two pills into the piece of paper. The box collapsed in her hand. She put the pills and the piece of envelope in her pocket. She left the kitchen about that time. I thought she was going to bed, and, indeed, she said she would not be long out of bed. I did not know anyone that she was on bad terms with.
A Juryman: Is there any chance of a reward being offered by the Home Secretary?
The Foreman of the Jury: There is already a reward of 100 pounds offered by Mr. Samuel Montagu, M.P. There is a committee getting up subscriptions for another 100 pounds. The coroner has already said that the Government ought to offer a reward.
A Juror: There is more dignity about a Government reward.
The Foreman of the Jury: There are several ideas of rewards, and it is supposed that about 300 pounds will be got up. It will all be done by private individuals.
The Coroner: As far as we know, the case is complete.
The Foreman of the Jury: As far as we can see, it is a case of murder against some person or persons unknown.
The Coroner: Shall we meet again tomorrow or next week?
The further inquiry was ultimately adjourned till next Wednesday afternoon.

SINGULAR ARRESTS.

Charles Ludwig, 40, a decently-dressed German, of the Minories, was charged at the Thames police-court, on Tuesday, with being drunk and threatening to stab Alexander Finlay, of 51, Leman-street, Whitechapel. - The prosecutor said that at three o'clock that (Tuesday) morning he was standing at a coffee-stall in Whitechapel, when the accused came up drunk, and in consequence was refused to be served. He then said to the prosecutor, "What are you looking at?" and pulled out a knife with which he tried to stab the witness. Ludwig followed him round the stall, and made several attempts to stab him. A constable then came up, and he was given into custody. - Constable 221 H said the prisoner was in a very excited condition, and the witness had previously received information that he was wanted in the City for attempting to cut a woman's throat with a razor. On the way to the station he dropped a long-bladed open knife, and on him was found a razor and a long-bladed pair of scissors. Inspector Pimley, H division, asked the magistrate to remand the prisoner, as they had not had sufficient time to make inquiries concerning him. - A City constable, John Johnson, 866, stated that early that morning he was on duty in the Minories, when he heard loud screams of "Murder!" proceeding from a court. The court led to some railway arches, and was well known as a dangerous locality. On going into the court he found the prisoner with a woman. The former appeared to be under the influence of drink. Witness asked what we was doing, when he replied, "Nothing." The woman, who appeared to be in a very agitated state, said, "Oh, policeman, do take me out of this." The woman was so frightened that she could then give no further explanation. The witness got her and the accused out of the court, and sent the latter off. He walked with the woman to the end of his beat, when she said, "Dear me. He frightened me very much when he pulled a big knife out." The witness said, "Why didn't you tell me that at the time?" and she said, "I was too much frightened." He then searched for the prisoner, but could not find him and therefore told several other constables what he had seen and heard. The witness had been out all the morning trying to find the woman, but up to the present time had not been able to do so. He should know her again. He believed the prisoner worked in the neighbourhood. - Mr. Saunders said it was clear the prisoner was a dangerous man, and ordered him to be remanded.

A labourer, named Edward Quinn, aged 35, was placed in the dock at Woolwich police-court, on Monday, charged nominally with being drunk at the police-station. - His face and hands were much bruised, and he was considerably blood-stained. - The magistrate was about to dispose of the case briefly, when the prisoner remarked that he had a complaint to make. He said: On Saturday I was at a bar down by the arsenal at Woolwich, having a drink. I had stumbled over something in the street just before, and had cut my face and knuckles, as you see, and I had bled a good lot. While at the bar a big, tall man came in and stood beside me and looked at me. He got me in tow, and gave me some beer and tobacco, and then he said, "I mean to charge you with the Whitechapel murders." I though it was a joke, and laughed, but he said he was serious, and pointed to the blood about me. I said, "Nonsense! Is that all the clue you have got?" He then dropped the subject, and took me for a walk until we got to the police-station, where he charged me with the Whitechapel murders.
Mr. Fenwick: were you not drunk?
Quinn: Certainly not, sir.
Mr. Fenwick: You will be remanded.
Quinn: This is rather rough. I am dragged a mile to the station and locked up, and I am to wait another day with all this suspicion of murder hanging over my head.
Mr. Fenwick: I will take your own bail for 5 pounds for your reappearance.
Quinn: I object to the whole thing. Me murder a woman! I couldn't murder a cat (laughter).
The prisoner was then released on his recognisances.

Thomas Mills, 59, described as a cabinet maker, with no fixed abode, but who has been at least 100 times before the court for drunkenness, was again brought up at Worship-street police-court on Thursday, to answer a charge of being intoxicated in Wellington-row, Shoreditch, on the previous night. - The constable, who proved the case, said he found the prisoner surrounded my a mob, the people pulling him about and threatening him, saying, "We'll lynch him; he's "Leather Apron." The prisoner was drunk, and for his own safety was removed to the police-station. - The prisoner (to the magistrate): It's quite true, sir; but what am I to do? Whenever I go out they say I'm "Leather Apron," because the Police News published a portrait of the man, and I'm like it. I was out looking for work, and wherever I go they say, "That's him!" and I can't get work, and I get a drop to drink, and then I get angry. - The Assistant-gaoler (Police-constable Game) said that the prisoner had been before the court only on Tuesday for being drunk, and was then discharged. - Mr. Saunders said he had no doubt it was the prisoner's own fault for getting drunk. If he kept sober people would not take any notice of his likeness to a picture. He fined him 2s. 6d.
Some few of the detectives at first engaged in the case are now on holiday leave. Their places have been filled by comparative strangers from Scotland-yard, who merely report themselves to the local inspectors, and proceed upon their duty at the positions allotted to them. At two o'clock on Thursday morning a man was seen talking to a woman near Great Pearl-street. A detective on the look-out considered that he was at last within measurable distance of the real criminal. Approaching the stranger cautiously, he questioned him as to what his business was at that hour. His answers were not considered satisfactory, and certain recriminations led to such unpleasantness that the woman's companion was told he must go to the station. The detective was then somewhat surprised to find that he had arrested a brother officer, who was forthwith liberated upon the production of his warrant-card.

NO GOVERNMENT REWARD.

On Wednesday morning a meeting of the Vigilance committee, of which Mr. Lusk is president, met again at 74, Mile-end-road, for the purpose of receiving the reports of their honorary officers in the matter. - The secretary said that on the 15th inst. the committee sent a letter to the Home Secretary on the subject, which was to the following effect: - "At a meeting of the committee of gentlemen, held at 74, Mile-end-road, it was resolved to approach you upon the subject of the reward we are about to issue for the discovery of the author or authors of the late atrocities in the East-end of London, and to ask you, sir, to augment our fund for the said purpose, or kindly state your reasons for refusing." To this letter he had received the following communication:

Sir, - I am directed by the Secretary of State to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 16th inst. with reference to the question of the offer of a reward for the discovery of the perpetrators of the recent murders in Whitechapel, and I am to inform you that had the Secretary of State considered the case a proper one for the offer of a reward he would at once have offered one on behalf of the Government, but that the practice of offering rewards for the discovery of criminals was discontinued some years ago, because experience showed that such offers of reward tended to produce more harm than good, and the Secretary of State is satisfied that there is nothing in the circumstances of the present case to justify a departure from this rule. - I am, sir, your obedient servant, G. LEIGH PEMBERTON.

The moment the newspapers containing the letter of the Home Secretary were read on Wednesday evening, a tremendous storm of indignation was roused in the breasts of the public, and a fierce denunciation of the Home Office authorities was heard at every house and street corner. Meetings were held at over 40 places for the one purpose of denouncing the letter, which was described by one speaker as the "lamest piece of officialism ever issued from a Government office" A large meeting took place at 74, Mile-end-road for the purpose of discussing the letter of the Home Secretary, and taking measures for the offer of a public reward for the apprehension of the murderer. The chair was taken by Mr. George Lusk, the president of the Vigilance committee, and he was supported by several of the most prominent inhabitants in the district. Mr. Aarons, the treasurer, announced that he had a tolerably large sum in hand, and he moved that bills should be distributed, and advertisements sent to the papers, offering the preliminary reward of 50 pounds, which would be increased as the funds came in. The motion was carried unanimously, amid much cheering. Mr. Aarons subsequently expressing his conviction that funds would no doubt flow in steadily now that the people of Whitechapel knew for certain they could not rely upon the Home office for help.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, September 23, 1888, Page 8

HANBURY-STREET TRAGEDY.
STARTLING STATEMENT - VERDICT.

Mr. Wynne Baxter resumed the adjourned inquest at the Working Lads' institute, Whitechapel, on Wednesday, on the body of Annie Chapman, which was found on the morning of the 8th inst. dreadfully mutilated in the backyard of 29, Hanbury-street.
The coroner at once proceeded to sum up the evidence to the jury. He congratulated them that their labours were now nearly completed. Although up to the present they had not resulted in the detection of the criminal, he had no doubt that if the perpetrator of this foul murder was eventually discovered their efforts would not have been useless. He then recalled the important facts of the case, which have already been fully detailed in evidence, remarking that "the glimpses of life in those dens which the evidence in this case discloses is sufficient to make us feel that there is much in the 19th century civilisation of which we have small reason to be proud; but you, who are constantly called together to hear the sad tale of starvation, of semi-starvation, of misery, immorality, and wickedness which some of the occupants of the 5,000 beds in this district have every week to relate to coroners' inquests, do not require to be reminded of what life in a Spitalfields lodging-house means. It is in one of these that the older bruises found on the temple and in 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. There is some conflict in the evidence about the time when the deceased was despatched. It is not unusual to find inaccuracy in such details, but this variation is not very great or very important. She was found dead about six o'clock."

HOW THE DEED WAS COMMITTED.

After describing the finding of the body, he said as to the deed: "All was done 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 business-like precision in order near her feet. The murder seems, like the Buck's-row case, to have been carried out without any cry. Sixteen people were in the house. The partitions of the different rooms are of wood. 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. There are two things missing. Her rings had been wrenched from her fingers and have not been found, and the uterus has been taken away. The body has not been dissected, but the injuries have been made by some person who evidently had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. There are no meaningless cuts. The organ had 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. No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have recognised it when it was found. For instance, no mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations. It must have been someone accustomed to the post-mortem room. The conclusion that the desire was to possess the missing organ seems overwhelming. If the object were robbery, the injuries to the viscera were meaningless, for death had previously resulted from the loss of blood at the neck. The difficulty in believing that the purport of the murderer was the possession of the uterus is natural. It is abhorrent to our feelings to conclude that a life should be taken for so slight an object; but when rightly considered, the reasons for most murders are altogether out of proportion to the guilt.

A STARTLING COMMUNICATION.

"It has been suggested that the criminal is a lunatic with morbid feelings. This may or may not be the case, but the object of the murderer appears palpably shown by the facts, and it is not necessary to assume lunacy, for it is clear that there is a market for the missing organ. To show you this, I must mention a fact which at the same time proves the assistance which publicity and the newspaper press afford in the detection of crime. 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 months ago an American called 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 pounds 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 - the usual medium - 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 a 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 human wickedness could enter into the mind of any man, but unfortunately our criminal annals prove that every crime is possible.
"I need hardly say that I at once communicated my information to the detective department at Scotland-yard. Of course I do not know what use has been made of it, but I believe that publicity may 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. Gentlemen, I have endeavoured to suggest to you the object with which this crime was committed, and the class of person who must have committed it. 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 deer-stalker hat on his head, and a dark coat on his back. If your views accord with mine, 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 our civilisation, mar our progress, and blot the pages of our Christianity.
The jury consulted for a minute, when
The Foreman said: We can only come to one conclusion, and that it that a brutal murder has been perpetrated by some person or persons unknown. That is all we can find as our verdict. I think that will meet the case.
The Coroner: Quite so.
The Foreman: If that would meet the case we don't want to add anything more.
We were to add a rider as regards the mortuary, but that having been done by the previous jury we will allow that to stand as it is. There is only one thing that we may ask. We have sat here for five days, and the majority of the jury now wish to be excluded for at least two years from attending any other coroner's jury in your district.
The Coroner: We will endeavour to meet your views; but I am sure, if any important case occurred, you would not be unwilling to serve, as, from your residence in the district, your attendance would be important.

CHILD MURDER AT WALTHAMSTOW.

Mr. Lewis held an inquest at the Wanstead local board office, on Monday, on the body of a new-born female child, which was found in the Hollow pond, Whipp's Cross, Walthamstow, on Saturday afternoon. The body presented a shocking appearance, there being three wounds in the neck, which was nearly severed from the body, and five wounds in the back. The medical evidence showed that the child had lived for about 24 hours, and that the organs were healthy. The body was drained of blood. The inquiry was adjourned.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, September 30, 1888, Page 8

The Inquest.

Yesterday morning Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, the Coroner for the North-Eastern Division of Middlesex, who was accompanied by Mr. George Collier, the Deputy Coroner, opened his inquiry in the Alexandra room of the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel Road, respecting the death of Annie Chapman, who was found murdered in the back yard of 29, Hanbury Street, Spitalfields, on Saturday morning.
Detective Inspectors Abberline (Scotland Yard), Helson, and Chandler, and Detective Sergeants Thicke and Leach watched the case on behalf of the Criminal Investigation Department and Commissioners of Police.
The court room was crowded, and, owing to the number of persons assembled outside the building, the approaches had to be guarded by a number of police constables.
The jury having been impanelled, proceeded to the mortuary to view the body of the deceased, which was lying in the same shell as that occupied a short time since by the unfortunate Mary Ann Nichols.
John Davis, a carman, of 29, Hanbury Street, Spitalfields, deposed that he occupied the front room, which was shared by his wife and three sons. About 8 o'clock on Friday night he went to bed, and his sons came in at different times. The last one arrived home about a quarter to 11. Witness was awake from 3 to about 5 o'clock, when he fell off to sleep for about half an hour. He got up about a quarter to 6. Soon afterwards he went across the yard.
The front portion of the house faced Hanbury Street. On the ground floor there was a front door, with a passage running through to the back yard. He was certain of the time, because he heard the bell of Spitalfields Church strike. The front door and the one leading into the yard were never locked, and at times were left open at nights. Since he had lived in the house witness had never known the doors to be locked; and when the doors were shut any person could open them and pass into the yard. When he went into the yard on Saturday morning the back door was shut; but he was unable to say whether it was latched. The front door was wide open, and he was not surprised at finding it so, as it was frequently left open all night. Between the yard of 29, Hanbury-street, and the next house there was a fence about 5ft high. When witness went down the steps he saw the deceased woman lying flat on her back.
The coroner here observed that in similar inquiries in the country the police always assisted him by preparing a plan of the locality which happened to be the subject of investigation. He thought the present case was one of sufficient importance for the production of such a plan, and he hoped that in future a plan would be laid before him.
Inspector Chandler told the Coroner a plan would be prepared.
The coroner replied it might then be too late to be of any service.
Witness, continuing, said the deceased was lying between the steps and the fence, with her head towards the house. He could see that her clothes were disarranged. Witness did not go further into the yard, but at once called two men, who worked for Mr. Bailey, a packingcase maker, of Hanbury Street, whose place was three doors off. These men entered the passage and looked at the woman, but did not go into the yard. He was unable to give the names of these two men, but knew them well by sight. Witness had not since seen the men, who went away to fetch the police. Witness also left the house with them.
In answer to the Coroner, Inspector Chandler said these men were not known to the police.
The coroner remarked that they would have to be found, either by the police or by his own officer.
Witness further stated that on leaving the house he went direct to the Commercial Street Police station, and reported what he had seen. Previous to that he had not informed any one living in the house of the discovery. After that he went back to Hanbury Street, but did not enter his house. He had never previously seen the deceased.
In cross-examination, the witness said he was not the first person down that morning, as a man, named Thompson, who also lived in the house, was called about half-past 3. He had never seen women who did not live in the house in the passage since he had lived there, which was only a fortnight. He did not hear any strange noises before getting up on Saturday morning.
Amelia Farmer stated that she lived at a common lodginghouse at 30, Dorset Street, Spitalfields, and had lived there for the past four years. She had identified the body of the deceased in the mortuary, and was sure it was that of Annie Chapman. The deceased formerly lived at Windsor, and was the widow of Frederick Chapman, a veterinary surgeon, who died about 18 months ago. For four years, or more, the deceased had lived apart from her husband, and during that period had principally resided in common lodginghouses in the neighbourhoods of Whitechapel and Spitalfields.
About two years since the deceased lived at 30, Dorset Street, and was then living with a man who made iron sieves. She was then receiving an allowance of 10s. a week from her husband. Some 18 months since the payments stopped, and it was then that she found her husband was dead. That fact was also ascertained from a relative of the deceased, who used to live in Oxford Street, Whitechapel. The deceased went by the name of Sievey, on account of the man with whom she had cohabited being a sieve maker. This man left her some time ago. During the past week witness had seen the deceased some two or three times.
On Monday, in Dorset Street, she complained of feeling unwell. At that time she had a bruise on one of her temples. Witness inquiring how she got it, the deceased told her to look at her breast, which was also bruised. The deceased said, "You know the woman," and she mentioned a name which witness did not remember. Both the deceased and the woman referred to were acquainted with a man called "Harry the Hawker." In giving an account of the bruises, the deceased told witness that on the 1st inst. she went into a publichouse with a young man named Ted Stanley in Commercial Street. "Harry the Hawker" and the other woman were also there. The former, who was drunk, put down a florin, which was picked up by the latter, who replaced it with a penny. Some words passed between the deceased and the woman, and in the evening the latter struck her and inflicted the bruises. Witness again saw the deceased on Tuesday by the side of Spitalfields Church.
The deceased again complained of feeling unwell, and said she thought she would go into the casual ward for a day or two. She mentioned that she had had nothing to eat or drink that day, not even a cup of tea. Witness gave deceased twopence saying, "Here is twopence to have a cup of tea, but don't have rum." She knew that deceased was given to drinking that spirit. The deceased, who frequently got the worse for drink, used at times to earn money by doing crochet work, and at others by selling flowers.
Witness believed she was not very particular what she did to earn a living and at times used to remain out very late at night. She was in the habit of going to Stratford. Witness did not again see the deceased until Friday afternoon, and about 5 o'clock on that day she met her in Dorset Street.
The deceased, who was sober, in answer to a question from witness as to whether she was going to Stratford, said she felt too ill to do anything. A few minutes afterwards witness again saw the deceased, who had not moved, and she said, "It's no use my giving way. I must pull myself together and go out and get some money, or I shall have no lodgings." That was the last time witness saw her. She mentioned that she had been an inmate of the casual ward. Deceased was generally an industrial woman, and witness considered her clever. For the last five years she had been living an irregular life, more especially since her husband died. She had two children, and on the death of her husband they were sent away to school. The deceased had a sister and mother, but witness believed they were not on friendly terms.
Timothy Donovan stated he was the deputy of a common lodginghouse at 35, Dorset Street, Spitalfields. He had seen the body in the mortuary, and identified it as that of a woman who had lodged at his place. She had been living there for about four months, but was not there any day last week until Friday. About 7 o'clock that day she came to the lodginghouse and asked him to allow her to go down into the kitchen. He asked where she had been all the week, and she replied, "In the infirmary." He then allowed her to go down into the kitchen. She remained there until shortly before 2 o'clock the next morning. When she went out she said, "I have not any money now, but don't let the bed; I will be back soon."
At that time there was a vacant bed, and it was the one she generally occupied. She then left the house, but witness did not see which way she turned. She had had enough to drink when he last saw her, but she was well able to walk straight. The deceased generally got the worse for drink on Saturdays, but not on the other days of the week. He told her that she could find money for drink but not for her bed, and she replied that she had only been to the top of the street as far as the Ringers' publichouse. He did not see her with any one that night. On Saturday night deceased used to stay at the lodginghouse with a man of military appearance, and witness had heard he was a pensioner.
She had brought other men to the lodginghouse. On the 2nd inst. deceased paid 8 d. a night for her bed. The pensioner was about 45 years of age and about 5ft. 8in. in height. At times he had the appearance of something better. Witness had never had any trouble with the deceased, who was always very friendly with the other lodgers.
John Evans, night watchman at the lodginghouse, also identified the body of deceased. He saw her leave the house at about a quarter to 2 on Saturday morning. Just before he had asked her whether she had not sufficient, and then told the last witness she would not be long before she got it. Witness saw her enter a court called Paternoster Row and walk in the direction of Brushfield Street.
Witness said she was the worse for drink. She told him she had that night been to see one of her sisters who lived at Vauxhall. Before he spoke to her about her lodging money she had been out for a pint of beer. He knew that she had been living a rough life, but only knew one man with whom she associated. That man used to come and see her on Saturdays. He called about half-past 2 on Saturday afternoon to make inquiries about the deceased. He said he had heard of her death. Witness did not know his name or address. After hearing an account of the death of the deceased he went out without saying a word. Witness had never heard any person threaten the deceased, and she had never stated she was afraid of any one. He did not see the deceased leave the lodginghouse with the pensioner on Sunday week.
On Thursday the deceased and a woman called Eliza had a fight in the kitchen, during which she got a blow on the chest and a black eye.
The coroner here intimated that that was as far as he proposed to carry the inquiry at present, and it was adjourned until tomorrow afternoon.

Source: The London Times, September 11, 1888

Interestingly, I had never heard of this particular clue being found by the police after the murder of Annie Chapman.

THE MURDER MYSTERY

Everyone is (says the London correspondent of a contemporary) talking about the last Whitechapel murder, and no one has anything worth listening to say about it. At the time of writing, after four days' panic, popular vigilance and police and detective investigation, the mystery remains a mystery still. This is the more tantalising because the margin between the known and the unknown is so small. We seem to know pretty well everything about the murder bar the name and personality of the assassin. A very small exercise of imagination is needed to fill in what happened between the hour of 2 a.m., when the unfortunate woman, Sarah Chapman (or "Sivvey" as she was more generally called), staggered out of the common lodging house in Dorset street intent on earning enough by prostitution to pay for her "doss" (bed), and the awful discovery of the mutilated body soon after six.
The crime must have been committed in broad daylight, as at half-past four a workman passed through the yard, and there was nothing amiss. It is, I fancy, this thought more than anything else, that has so terrified East-enders. The murderer, they reflect, must be a man of diabolic nerve and great strength. The world, he knew, was just waking up. At any moment he might be interrupted. Moreover, one scream from his victim, and he was doomed. True the woman was drunk, and therefore comparatively easy to kill. Still, that the maniac (for a maniac the wretch most certainly is) should have slaughtered her within a few yards of a whole houseful of sleeping folk, none of whom, despite open windows, heard an unusual sound, is certainly appalling. Several arrests have been made during the week, but I do not attach much importance to any of them.
Personally, I think if I were on the detective "lay" that I should turn my attention to the adjacent slaughter-houses and their inmates, and feel special interest in any powerfully-built man I find there. Slaughterers, bear in mind, are about and at work at five in the morning; they carry just such a knife as the murderer must have used, and their clothes might be covered with blood without the fact attracting any attention. One can imagine too, that an insane slaughterer's mania might easily take the form of murder and disembowelling, &c.
Another tenable theory is that the murderer is a doctor or medical student. A singular piece of circumstantial evidence which supports this is that the viscera were laid beside the body after the manner doctors lay them when conducting a post-mortem. On one point both the police and the public seem agreed, viz., that all the four murders in the district were the work of one hand. Local prejudice points to a mysterious brute called "Leather Apron" as the perpetrator of the crimes. It seems a man rejoicing in this sobriquet, but otherwise known, has been terrorising the Whitechapel unfortunates from time to time. Every sort of crime is now attributed to him, but so far as can be ascertained his offences did not amount to more than coarse and cruel practical jokes.
So far a good many apparently innocent persons have been examined, without anything of importance resulting. The "sensation" is, of course, a great stroke for the papers at this dull season. On Monday the circulation of the Star exceeded 284,000, the highest figure they have touched yet. Their noon edition alone, in which the capture of a supposed "Leather Apron" was announced, cleared out 83,000. It is at times like these people can't help recalling the many terrible offenders our much-vaunted police have failed to bring to justice of late The Kentish Town murder and the Canonbury murder, both committed within the last few months in open day, are still mysteries.
A man named Piser, a Polish Jew, whom a Whitechapel detective declares is the original "Leather Apron," was arrested on Monday, and detained till Tuesday afternoon, when the police had to confess they could find nothing against him.
An important clue, however, turned up on the same day. A little girl happened to be walking in the back garden or yard of the house, 25 Hanbury Street the next house but one to the scene of the murder, when her attention was attracted to peculiar marks on the wall and on the garden path. A bloody trail was found distinctly marked for a distance of five or six feet in the direction of the back door of the house. On the wall of the last house there was found a curious mark, between a smear and a sprinkle, which had probably been made by the murderer, who, alarmed by the blood-soaked state of his coat, took off that garment and knocked it against the wall. Abutting on the end of the yard at No. 25 are the works of Mr. Bailey, a packing-case maker. In the yard of this establishment, in an out-of-the-way corner, the police found some crumpled paper, almost saturated with blood. It was evident that the murderer had found the paper in the yard of No. 25, and had wiped his hands with it afterwards, throwing it over the wall into Bailey's premises.

Source: West Coast Times, Issue 7235, 6 November 1888, page 4

THE FOURTH MURDER.

The following is taken from a New York paper, and gives the details of the fourth crime, telegraphed over the Atlantic by a correspondent on the spot: -
London, Sept. 8. - Not even during the riots and fog of February, 1886 have I seen London so thoroughly excited as it is tonight. The Whitechapel fiend murdered his fourth victim this morning and still continues undetected, unseen, and unknown. There is a panic in Whitechapel which will instantly extend to other districts should he change his locality, as the four murders are in everybody's mouth. The papers are full of them, and nothing else is talked of. The latest murder is exactly like its predecessor. The victim was a woman street walker of the lowest class. She had no money, having been refused lodgings shortly before because she lacked 8d. Her throat was cut so completely that everything but the spine was severed, and the body was ripped up, all the viscera being scattered about. The murder in all its details was inhuman to the last degree, and, like the others, could have been the work only of a bloodthirsty beast in human shape. It was committed in the most daring manner possible. The victim was found in the back yard of a house in Hanbury street at six o'clock. At 5:15 the yard was empty. To get there the murderer must have led her through a passage-way in the house full of sleeping people, and murdered her within a few yards of several people sleeping by open windows. To get away, covered with blood as he must have been, he had to go back through the passage-way and into a street filled with early market people, Spitalfields being close by. Nevertheless, not a sound was heard and no trace of the murderer exists.
All day long Whitechapel has been wild with excitement. The four murders have been committed within a gunshot of each other, but the detectives have no clue. The London police and detective force is probably the stupidest in the world. The man called "Leather Apron," of whom I cabled you, is still at large. He is well known, but they have not been able to arrest him, and he will doubtless do another murder in a day or so. One clue discovered this morning by a reporter may develop into something. An hour and a half after the murder a man with bloody hands, torn shirt, and a wild look entered a public-house half a mile from the scene of the murder. The police have a good description of him, and are trying to trace it. The assassin, however, is as cunning as he is daring. Both in this and in the last murder he took but a few minutes to murder his victim in a spot which had been examined but a quarter of an hour before. Both the character of the deed and the cool cunning alike exhibit the qualities of a monomaniac.
Such a series of murders has not been known in London for a hundred years. There is a bare possibility that it may turn out to be something like a case of Jeckyll and Hyde, as Joseph Taylor, a perfectly reliable man, who saw the suspected person this morning in a shabby dress, swears that he has seen the same man coming out of a lodging-house in Wilton street very differently dressed. However that may be, the murders are certainly the most ghastly and mysterious known to English police history. What adds to the weird effect they exert on the London mind is the fact that they occur while everybody is talking about Mansfield's "Jeckyll and Hyde" at the Lyceum.

Source: Star, Issue 6372, 18 October 1888, Page 3

THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS.
LUDWIG NOT THE MAN.

STILL WITHOUT A CLUE.

The Whitechapel murders are still a profound mystery. The sane or maniac criminal has not yet been arrested, for the Police have satisfied themselves, from inquiries made, that the German Ludwig, alias Wetzel, who was charged with attempting to stab a man with a penknife, could not have killed either of the unfortunate East-end women whose death has caused so much apprehension to Whitechapel residents and anxiety to the police authorities. "Nothing to work upon" - an official term for absence of clue - is said to account for the non-success in tracing the murderer.
Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, has had another consultation with the police authorities respecting certain theories advanced. There are three points upon which there is agreement - that Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29, Hanbury-street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view; that the poor creature was murdered in the yard, and not in a house, as had been at one time suggested; and that the person who committed the deed was a man with some knowledge of human or animal anatomy.

A FINSBURY LANDLORD INTERVIEWED.

The landlord of the hotel in Finsbury where the man Weitzel stayed at various times, has made the following statement to a representative of the Press Association this morning: - "I must say I have been very suspicious of the man since the last murder at Whitechapel. On the day after that event, that is Sunday, he called here about nine o'clock, in a very dirty state, and asked to be allowed to wash. He said he had been out all night, and began to talk to me about the Spitalfields affair. He wore a felt hat, a dirty greyish suit, and yellow sea-side slippers. He brought with him a case of razors and a large pair of scissors, and after a time he wanted to shave me. I did not like the way he went on, and refused. Previous to this I had not seen him for about eighteen months, and he made most contradictory statements as to where he had been. I did not see whether he had any blood on his hands, as has been said, for I did not watch him very closely, and wanted to get him out of the place as soon as possible."

A MOST EXTRAORDINARY MAN.

"He is," added the landlord, "a most extraordinary man, is always in a bad temper, and grinds his teeth in rage at any little thing which puts him out. I believe he has some knowledge of anatomy, as he was for some time an assistant to some doctors in the German army, and helped to dissect bodies. He always carries some razors and a pair of scissors with him, and when he came here again on Monday night last he produced them. He was annoyed because I would not let him sleep here, and threw down the razors in a passion, swearing at the same time. If there had been a policeman near I should have given him into custody. I noticed on this occasion a great change in his dress. Whereas on the former visit he looked very untidy, he was this time wearing a top hat and looked rather smart. He has told me that he has been living in the West-end, but I believe he is well known at the cheap lodging-houses in Whitechapel. On Monday last he remained here till about one o'clock, and I then turned him out, as he is a very disagreeable fellow, and very dirty in his habits. The police have not been to see me yet about him."

REFUSING TO OFFER A REWARD.

This morning a meeting of the Vigilance Committee, of which Mr. Lusk is president, met again at 74, Mile-end-road, for the purpose of receiving the reports of their honorary officers in the matter. From the statements of Mr. Aarons, Mr. B. Harris, Mr. Cohen, and the president himself, there appeared to be a general belief that a substantial Government reward would bring about the apprehension of the murderer. The secretary said that on the 15th inst. the Committee sent a letter to the Home Secretary on the subject, which was to induce him to offer a reward, or to augment their fund. The following reply had been received: -

Whitehall, 17th Sept., 1888

Sir, - I am directed by the Secretary of State to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 16th inst., with reference to the question of the offer of a reward for the discovery of the perpetrators of the recent murders in Whitechapel; and I am to inform you that, had the Secretary of State considered the case a proper one for the offer of a reward, he would at once have offered one on behalf of the Government; but that the practice of offering rewards for the discovery of criminals was discontinued some years ago, because experience showed that such offers of reward tended to produce more harm than good, and the Secretary of State is satisfied that there is nothing in the circumstances of the present case to justify a departure from this rule. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, G. LEIGH PEMBERTON.

ANNIE CHAPMAN'S DEATH.
LIVELY EPISODE AT THE INQUEST.

DR. PHILLIPS' EVIDENCE.
PORTIONS OF THE BODY MISSING.

The resumed inquiry into the circumstances of Annie Chapman's death at 29, Hanbury-street, was held this afternoon, at the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel-road, before Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, who was accompanied by his deputy, Mr. George Collier.
Chief Inspector West, Inspector Abberline, Inspector Helson, and Inspector Chandler represented the police.

"DARK ANNIE'S" FELLOW LODGER.

Eliza Cooper, living at 35, Dorset-street (a common lodging-house), Spitalfields, said she had been lodging there for five months. On the Saturday before Annie Chapman's death witness lent a piece of soap to the deceased. Ted Stanley was then present. On the following Tuesday witness asked Mrs. Chapman for the piece of soap lent her. Then they went to a public-house, and a quarrel ensued.
Did you strike her? - Yes, on the left eye, and also on the head.
When did you last see her alive? - On the Wednesday, 15th of September. She was then wearing three rings on the third finger of the left hand.
Were they gold? - No, brass - all three. She has never had a gold wedding-ring to my knowledge.
Did you know any one else besides Stanley with whom she associated? - She associated with several others besides Stanley.
By the jury - I could not say that any of the men are missing.

"SHE HAD BEEN SEIZED BY THE CHIN."

Dr. G.B. Phillips, re-examined, deposed - On the last occasion I mentioned that there were reasons why I thought the perpetrator of the murder caught hold of the woman's throat. On the left side, below the lower jaw, are three scratches, 1 1/2 to 2 inches below the lower lobe of the ear, and going in the contrary direction to the incision in the throat. These are of recent date. The abrasions are on the left side, and on the right side are corresponding bruises. I washed the bruises, and they became much more distinct, whereas the bruises mentioned in my last evidence remained the same. The woman had been seized by the chin while the incisions in the throat had been perpetrated.

BETTER NOT TO GIVE FULL DETAILS.

Dr. Phillips then paused, and said that, in the interests of justice, he thought it would be better not to give the full details.
The Coroner - We have to decide the cause of death, and have a right to hear the particulars. Whether that evidence is made public rests with the Press. I may say that I have never heard of any evidence being kept back before.
Dr. Phillips - I am, of course, in the hands of the Court. What I was going to detail took place after death.
The Coroner - That is a matter of opinion, Doctor. Medical men often differ, you know.

"JUSTICE MIGHT BE FRUSTRATED."

Dr. Phillips repeated that he did not think the details should be given. Justice might be frustrated, and (glancing at some ladies and boys in the Court) -------
The Coroner remarked that justice had had a long time to solve the case; but he certainly thought that ladies and boys should leave the room.
The Foreman - We are of opinion that the evidence the doctor wishes to keep back ought certainly to be given.
The Coroner said he had delayed calling the evidence in order that it might not interfere with justice; but justice had had about a fortnight to avenge itself.
Dr. Phillips - But it will not elucidate the cause of death.
The Coroner (warmly) said he must have the evidence.
The Court was then cleared of ladies and boys.

PORTIONS OF THE BODY MISSING.

Dr. Phillips (resuming) - The abdominal wall had been removed in three portions, two taken from the anterior part, and the third from another part of the body. There was a greater portion removed from the right side than the left. On placing these three flaps of skin together, it was evident that a portion was wanting. I removed the intestines as I found them in the yard. The mesentery vessels were divided through. The large intestines remained in situ, but cut through with a keen incision transversely. (Further details were given, which created a great sensation, the doctor asserting that other portions of the body were missing.)

KNIFE FIVE OR SIX INCHES LONG.

It was evident, continued the witness, that these absent portions, together with the incision in the large intestine, were the result of the same excising power. Thus I consider the weapon was from five to six inches long, and the appearance of the cuts confirm me in the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the structures of the neck, must have been of a very sharp character. The mode of removal of the abdominal wall indicated a certain anatomical knowledge; but the incision of certain viscera conveyed to my mind a greater anatomical knowledge. It is only an inference, but I think I ought to mention it, that the early removal of the intestines in the yard was necessary to enable the operator to effect other incisions of certain organs.

"MUST HAVE TAKEN FIFTEEN MINUTES."

The Coroner - How long did it take to inflict all these injuries?
Dr. Phillips - I could not have performed the removal under a quarter of an hour.
In reply to other questions, Dr. Phillips said that had he to excise the portions in a deliberate way, as a surgeon, it would have taken him an hour to remove them.

USELESS TO PHOTOGRAPH RETINA.

By the Jury - Witness, at an early stage, gave his advice to the Police that it would be useless to photograph the retina of the woman's eyes to see what was the last object retained on them. He also advised that bloodhounds would be of no use. The appearance of the dead woman's face was consistent with partial suffocation.

ANNIE CHAPMAN SEEN IN SPITALFIELDS.

Elizabeth Long, Church-row, Whitechapel, stated that on Saturday morning, the day of deceased's death, she was passing down Hanbury-street, to go to Spitalfields Market, at half-past five o'clock, when she saw a man and woman on the pavement. The man's back was turned towards Brick-lane and the woman's towards Spitalfields Market. They were standing a few yards from No. 29, Hanbury-street, the Brick-lane end. Witness saw the woman's face. She had seen the body in the mortuary, and was quite sure that it was the same.

HER COMPANION "LOOKED LIKE A FOREIGNER."

Witness could not see the man's face. She noticed that he was dark, and had a brown hat, turned up at the side. It was a brown "deerstalker." Witness thought his coat was dark. It was a man who looked to be over 40 years of age. He was a little taller than the deceased.
Did he look like a working man? - He looked like a foreigner. He was dark.
Did he look like a dock labourer? - What I should call shabby-genteel. They were talking loudly. He said to her, "Will you?" and she said, "Yes."
Was that all? - Yes.
Did you see where they went to? - No. I went to my work, and did not look back. I saw nothing to make me think they were the worse for drink.

NOT AN UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE.

Was it not unusual to see a man and woman talking together at that hour of the day? - I see a lot of them sometimes talking at that hour.
(The report will be continued.)

Source: The Echo, Wednesday September 19, 1888, Page 3

The excitement to which we referred last week as having been aroused in Whitechapel by a succession of murders was raised to the highest pitch on Saturday by the news that a fourth murder of the same kind had been committed in the neighbourhood that morning. Shortly before six o'clock one John Davis, who lives with his wife at the top of the house, No. 29, in Hanbury-street, and is a porter engaged in Spitalfields Market, went down into the back yard on his way to his work. There he saw a woman lying on the ground in a corner with her throat cut. On his fetching the police, it was found that the woman's body had been horribly mutilated. She has been identified as Annie Chapman, the widow of a coachman, who died about two years ago at Windsor. Owing to her dissolute habits, he had some years ago separated from her, allowing her 10s. a week while he lived. For some months past she has been living in common lodging-houses in Spitalfields, and when in good health has frequented Stratford for a living, selling antimacassars and flowers. For a time she lived with a seivemaker, for which reason she was known by the name of "Mrs. Sivvy." Only on the preceding Monday she had a quarrel with another woman, and in a fight was severely treated. The house behind which the body was found is tenanted by one Clark, a packing-case maker, and is let out by him in rooms to several poor persons. The front door seems to have been never locked, so that any one could easily go at any time of the night to the yard. It is strange that, so far as can be ascertained, no one of the occupants of the house heard any noise during the night. Nevertheless, the police seem to believe that the murder was committed on the spot, there being no traces of blood which would indicate that the dead body had been brought from a distance. And one piece of evidence tends to show that the murder was committed in the daylight. For John Richardson, son of a woman living in the house, states that he had entered the place when on his way to work at Leadenhall-market, and that at that time - only ten minutes to five - he is certain there was no one in the yard. The only thing that has been picked up in the yard to help in the search for the murderer is a portion of an envelope stained with blood and having the crest of the Sussex Regiment on it and the date, "London, August 20," and the single letter "M," the only remaining part of the address. The woman Annie Chapman was last seen at one or two o'clock the same morning at a common lodging-house, 35, Dorset-street, where she had occasionally lodged. She had been admitted to the kitchen, but as she had not money for her bed she left, saying she should soon return. The police have been searching for a man who goes by the sobriquet of "Leather Apron," as being suspected of having murdered another woman of ill-fame only eight days before in Buck's-row, which is within half-a-mile. One man has been arrested as being supposed to be this "Leather Apron." Half-a-dozen other arrests have also been made by the police on suspicion. The theory of the police is that all these murders have been committed by one man - a depraved lunatic. Readers of De Quincey's works will be reminded of his writing about murder considered as one of the fine arts. In Haydn's Dictionary of Dates reference is made to one Renwick Williams, "who prowled nightly through the streets of London secretly, armed with a double-edged knife, with which he shockingly wounded many females." He was known by the name of "the Monster," and was tried and convicted July 8, 1790.

Source: The Guardian, September 12, 1888, Page 1342

THE WHITECHAPEL HORROR.
FISHING FOR CLUES - INQUEST DISCLOSURES.

(FROM OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.)

LONDON, September 21.

Another week has passed, and the Whitechapel murders are mysterious still. All hopes of finding the assassin have, indeed, been long ago abandoned, save by the indomitable Sir Charles Warren and the indefatigable Detective Superintendent Abberline. The last-named officer, you may remember, was the one who defeated the Jubilee Day dynamitard plot and brought the last of the famous gang to justice. He does not pretend to be a Lecocq, but, given a clue, he can follow it up as well as any man. The Whitechapel murders are perplexing and confounding because of the total absence of clues. The nearest approach to one transpired in the coarse of the medical evidence at the inquests, but the suggestions it implies are so horrible I scarcely like to name them. The doctors declare that in both poor women's corpses the womb was cut out and taken away, and that the operations showed the murderer to be possessed of considerable anatomical knowledge. The inference an American detective, who was interviewed by the "Star" the other day, draws from this is that the murder was committed either by a doctor or medical student who makes a specialty of diseases of the womb. When one remembers what frightful cruelties medical and surgical enthusiasts have committed in the so-called cause of science, this thesis really does not seem beyond the bounds of possibility. In the case of the woman killed in Hamburg-street, the doctors declare that the murderer was busily at work for at least twenty minutes. "With my surgical knowledge I couldn't have accomplished the mutilation in less time," deposed one witness. The police cannot, however, learn that any well-dressed man was seen prowling about Whitechapel that night.

Source: Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 265, 9 November 1888, Page 4

[img][/img]

[img][/img]

LONDON, THURSDAY, SEPT. 27.

MR. WYNNE E. BAXTER, the Coroner for East Middlesex, in summing up the evidence given at the inquest on Annie Chapman, has made a startling, but very plausible, suggestion as to the motive of the murder. The doctor who made a careful inspection of the body discovered that one portion of the internal organs was missing, which had been carefully cut out. The Coroner says that from two medical institutions he has received information that a few months ago they received an application from an American, who wanted to purchase specimens of this portion of the human frame, for which he was willing to give 20 pounds each, and it is suggested that the miscreant who committed the murder knew where to find his market. That this is probable, and that the murderer actually killed the woman for the sake of supplying that market, is a view which those who are acquainted with the modern experiments in morbid anatomy will readily adopt. First let it be admitted that there is a genuine demand amongst students of morbid anatomy for every one of the organs of the human body for the purpose of intelligent dissecting and study. This step from justifiable investigation to needless experiment is not a long one, and it is conceivable that so interesting a portion of the human body as that which the American publishers who sought to buy a number of specimens wished to obtain, would be considered a prize by many a dilettant anatomist, especially if presented in the condition which the Coroner described. But the most serious responsibility attaches to those who offered to cater to so unwholesome a fancy; and the fact that they placed such a money value on the organ in question, which - terrible to relate - must be taken from a person who had only a few minutes previously died, renders them blameable, to a large extent, for the fiendish murders which have just disgraced Whitechapel. Three or four points now present themselves for the consideration of the police. The murderer is an educated student of anatomy; has probably very recently purchased a large quantity of glycerine, a wide necked bottle, and a long scalpel. He must have a hiding place near the place where he committed his crimes; he has probably got the awful proceeds of his last night's work in his possession. The only pity is that all these details were not made available by publication long since, and that the doctor who examined the body was allowed so long to delay his evidence. Whether the police will be able to make anything of the clue thus offered them remains to be seen.
The solution of the mystery is by no means an improbable one. Our very word "burking" recalls a series of crimes quite as atrocious, if not as repulsive. The high railings that surround London churchyards which were laid out early in the present century recall a time when the human ghouls known as "resurrection men" used to dig up dead bodies from their newly-made graves at night, in order to sell them to medical men for anatomical purposes. At Edinburgh an Irishman, named Burke, improved upon this plan by murdering his victims, in order to sell their bodies when they were still fresh. His plan was to kill by suffocation; hence "to burke" has become a short way of saying to stifle or suffocate. Burke, who was hanged in 1829, confessed to having committed no less than fourteen murders of this kind, before he was detected. Edinburgh was not the only field for such crimes. At the East-end of London, at the back of Shoreditch Church, two men, named Bishop and Williams, carried on a like murderous trade on a spot now known as Columbia-gardens. At last they decoyed a poor Italian boy, whom they killed, and whose corpse they sold to the doctors. For this crime they were tried and hanged in 1831. These miscreants first drugged the boy, and then drowned him in a well; they then packed up the corpse in a box, hawked it about to several dissecting rooms, and were finally given into custody by a surgeon at King's College. The usual price was from eight to twelve guineas. Bishop confessed that he and Williams murdered a poor homeless woman in the same way, afterwards selling the corpse to a doctor for ten pounds. A fortnight after the murder of the woman they killed a boy in the same way, and sold him at St. Bartholomew's Hospital for eight guineas. Bishop had lived as a body-snatcher for twelve years, and during that time, according to his own account, had obtained and sold from 500 to 1,000 bodies. It has been somewhat too hastily assumed that the latest Whitechapel murder reveals an appalling depth of human depravity which has never before been reached, but the cases that we have cited show that this is not the case, for though the mutilation of Annie Chapman strikes more powerfully upon the imagination, the callous indifference to human life as shown in fifteen successive murders for sordid gain, is really more terrible. Burke, Williams, and Bishop obtained a much smaller sum for the whole body of each victim than the supposed murderer of Annie Chapman might have obtained for a small part.

Source: The Echo, Thursday September 27, 1888, Page 2

THE WEEK.

Two more murders have occurred in London, within the same neighbourhood and marked by the same horrible peculiarities as the four previous ones. Now, as before, the victims have been women of low character; the death stroke has been swift and silent; and in one case the same mutilation has taken place. In the other the murderer seems to have been interrupted before he could carry out his purpose in this way. It is possible that he may have been driven by this circumstance to seek another victim, for both murders were committed in the same night. A theory was started by the coroner in the inquest on Annie Chapman which, in default of any other, holds the field for the present. He stated that the curator of a Pathological Museum had been asked by an American for a number of specimens of the organ which had been taken from the murdered woman, and that 20 pounds had been offered for each specimen. Here was a motive similar to that which induced Burke and Hare fifty years ago to commit a number of notorious murders. But Sir Risdon Bennett scouts the idea, on the ground that it is quite easy, either here or in America, to obtain any number of such objects for any purpose of legitimate research, without having recourse to crime.

Source: The Guardian, Wednesday October 3, 1888

WHITECHAPEL MURDERS.
A MAN GIVES HIMSELF UP.

HIS CONFESSION TO THE POLICE.
KNIFE IN HIS POSSESSION.

HIS EXPLANATION IN A PUBLIC-HOUSE.

We are confronted by a fresh and startling incident in connection with the Whitechapel horror. It occurred late last night. The scene of its initiation was the charge-room in the Police-station at High-street, Wandsworth. Shortly before twelve o'clock the sergeant in charge and Inspector Blackmore were accosted by a man, who pushed the door open, and walked deliberately into the room. He was rather above medium height, dark, unshaved, and shabby. He was evidently labouring under considerable excitement.

DETERMINED TO "TELL ALL HE KNEW."

Before the Inspector could leave his chair the man advanced, and said he wanted to make a confession. Asked his name, he is said to have hesitated before replying. However, eventually he stated that he was known as John Fitzgerald. He is unmistakenly an Irishman, and after the usual manner of his countrymen, commenced to tell a lengthy story. This led to the interposition of the inspector, who duly cautioned the man that any statement might be used against him. However, Fitzgerald was determined to "tell all he knew," as he himself put it, and forthwith asserted that he was the murderer of Annie Chapman, in Hanbury-street, Whitechapel. What he said further is reserved by the police. They refuse to divulge any other facts. Fitzgerald was immediately taken into custody and placed in one of the cells. He was not, however, charged in the usual way, being merely detained. Later on, between one and two o'clock this morning, he was conveyed by a sergeant to the Leman-street police-station in Whitechapel.

HOW HE SPENT LAST EVENING.

Fitzgerald is a stranger to the locality. He is unknown by the police at Wandsworth, and, up to ten o'clock this morning, nothing had been discovered as to his antecedents. During the latter part of last evening he is said to have spent some hours in public-houses in the High-street. A person who states that he was one of his companions, in the course of the evening communicated a few facts to an Echo reporter this morning.

HIS CONVERSATION CONCERNING THE MURDER.

"I met him in a house not far from the police-station," said this individual, an intelligent artisan, who gave the name of John Locus, and said he lived in Wandsworth-plain. "He seemed very desirous of conversing with almost everybody who came into the bar, and especially devoted himself to the Whitechapel murder. He explained how he thought the woman was killed, but I really couldn't tell what his theory was. I didn't take much notice of what he said at the time."

ILLUSTRATING HIS THEORY.

"Did he say whether he had been in the locality at all on the night of the occurrence?"
"I don't remember, but I believe he did," was the reply. "He said that he knew Whitechapel very well, and Hanbury-street particularly. Then he had a knife in his possession, the blade of which was about five inches long. With this he attempted to illustrate his explanation, and actually knelt down on the floor of the bar as though kneeling over a recumbent person."
"Did it not strike you as strange that he should throw so much energy into his story?"
"Well, no. I often meet such men in a public-house; and the others who were there only laughed at him."

"HE HAD NOWHERE TO GO."

Locus went on to say that Fitzgerald left the public-house shortly before he did. He, however, saw him again about half an hour later. He was then leaning against the wall of a house in a dark part of the street. Locus spoke to him, and asked whether he was going home, but he only received in reply an intimation that he had nowhere to go. Locus says he then left him until Fitzgerald presented himself at the police-station three-quarters of an hour later. Nothing further of his movements is known.

UNDOUBTEDLY HAD BEER - NOT DRUNK.

The police state that, though Fitzgerald had undoubtedly had beer, he was by no means drunk, and, after being cautioned, made his statement very clearly. He will be brought up in the course of the day at the Thames Police-court and duly charged.

THE CORONER'S STARTLING STATEMENT.
INQUIRIES IN AMERICA.

SEEKING THE "SHABBY-GENTEEL MAN."

The startling statement made by Mr. Wynne Baxter regarding the fate of the unfortunate woman Chapman has again stimulated public interest in the terrible crime. The clue afforded is, of course, being followed up by the police, who have now had the information in their possession for a week, but it has not transpired whether it has yet led to any tangible result. The inquiries of the police would necessarily extend to America, and on that account it may be some time before fresh facts could be in the hands of the public.

WAS THE MURDERERS' OBJECT THE SAME?

An important point yet to be made clear is as to whether the object of the murderer was the same in the cases of the women Nicholls and of Annie Chapman. The Coroner, in the former case, when he summed up last Saturday, appeared to think that it was; and at the time of expressing that opinion he must have been in receipt of an important communication from the sub-curator of the Pathological Museum attached to one of the Metropolitan hospitals, to which he referred in his summing-up on the body of Annie Chapman. The opinion he expressed last Saturday regarding Nicholls' case that carries weight. The "shabby genteel" man who was seen in Chapman's company shortly before her murder is being sought for, but up to the present, it would appear, without success.

PREVIOUS REQUESTS AT HOSPITALS.

From inquiries made at some of the great medical institutions, it has been ascertained that requests similar to that of the American gentleman have before been made, but the peculiar conditions attaching to the requests could not possibly be complied with unless the operation were performed before or immediately after death. Ever since the Coroner communicated the facts to the police authorities no stone has been left unturned to follow up the clue, and some inquiries are still proceeding.

Source: The Echo, Thursday September 27, 1888, Page 2