DID THE VICTIMS KNOW EACH OTHER?

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

DID THE VICTIMS KNOW EACH OTHER?

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Ripper Victims: DID THE VICTIMS KNOW EACH OTHER?

Author: Ashleah Skinner Saturday, 17 August 2002 - 10:58 pm
Well it is possible. They ALL knew someone who became a suspect i.e. Cathrine Eddowes knew his identity but murdered before naming him. Stride knew Michael Kidney who became a suspect a Kelly (if the theory is to be true) knew James Kelly, Joseph Barnett and George Hutchinson. Furthermore they either lived in or had Flower and Dean Street connections. Chapman, Stride and Kelly were documented to have frequented the Ten Bells. Stride often used 33 Dorset street with suspect Michael Kidney but also Chapman from May of 1888 onwards stayed at 35 Dorset street VERY near to Stride. And Nichols,Stride possibly others did also go to the Lambeth Infirmary. NOW DID THE VICTIMS KNOW EACH OTHER?
Author: John Savage Sunday, 18 August 2002 - 08:35 pm
Ashleah, Just as a matter of interest, the author James Tully, claims in his book Prisoner 1067 that Catherine Eddowes sometimes slept in a shed at the bottom of Millers Court. He gives as his source Lloyds Newspaper,7th Oct 1888 and 11th. Oct 1888 also Daily Telegraph 10th. November 1888. As you know she also used the name of Mary Ann Kelly when arrested, as well as using the name of Kelly on pawnbrokers tickets. It is aslo worth noting that the Cornoners Inquest Papers name her as "Catherine Conway otherwise Eddowes or Kelly". So whilst it is quite possible that all the victims knew each other to some degree, do you not think that the similarity of names used by Eddowes to that of Mary Jane Kelly is curious? Regardsw, JohnSavage
Author: Harry Mann Monday, 19 August 2002 - 05:29 am
As someone who lived in a large working class district,in a time before people had greater mobility and most movement about the area was done by walking,I claim to have known every family within that district. Not of course that I knew their whole lives intimately,and not even that I knew everyones name,but I knew something. I could recognise them by facial features,I knew where some worked,where some drank,where some shopped.Which children belonged to which family,which school they attended Nothing much was secret,because people were constantly meeting or passing each other,working and socialising,even inter marrying, and gossip was common. I believe that each victim would have known or recognised each other in some way. I also believe that the killer was local,that he would have some knowledge of the victims,as they would of him.
Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 20 August 2002 - 01:21 am
Hi Harry,And well written I am glad to see someone making such factual statements which are invaluable in trying to understand the situation in the East End of 1888.The victims would certainly have known each other if only by sight.It has been said that the killer took his pick from the 1200 prostitutes who worked in Whitechapel.This is not correct because only a very small number of prostitutes worked through the night. Thus the killer took his pick from a minority of the 1200 prostitutes.This makes the chances that the victims knew each other even greater and this minority would have known each other.Prostitutes in a certain area must know each other so that they dont encroach on each others patches.
Author: Harry Mann Tuesday, 20 August 2002 - 05:05 am
Ivor, Thanks for your kind comments,and as you say we must try to visualise how things were in Whitechapel those many years ago.I agree wholeheartedly with you that the prostitutes of that time ,as is the case today,would have a good understanding of each other,this through their close association with each other. In my years on the waterfront,it was interesting to see the same observance of territory,in this case ships instead of streets,and I cannot recall ever seeing or hearing of any territorial squabbles. Certainly there was common knowledge of each other,and in turn they were known by, and knew the multitude of those who worked around the wharves' area. I see no reason why the girls of Whitechapel or the inhabitants of that district would be any different.Very few would or could live the life of a total recluse. Your point Ivor,about the scarcity of those women available in the small hours,as I believe the same scarcity of the local populance on the streets,is the reason why such a killer could act undetected. Good health, Harry.
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Tuesday, 20 August 2002 - 10:30 pm
Ivor and Harry - Interesting thoughts, as always, and worth pondering. My own personal contention is that while the five canonical victims may certainly have 'known' one another (in Harry's sense as above), we should not from proximity presume intimacy. One of the reasons I tend to find the whole "did they know each other" argument annoying is that it is used as a handy, sloppy explanation for the murders, especially when bolstering one of the more comical versions of the Royal Conspiracy. They all knew each other, all knew something, and all had to die. Now, were that the case, then why do we never see any of the five interacting with each other save in death? If the five were so close that the death of one would inevitably lead to the next, then where are they in each other's lives? Why do we not see Stride testifying at the Chapman inquest? Why do we not hear of Kelly as one of Eddowes' drinking companions? Granted, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I think even the dullest of Scotland Yarders would have caught on to the fact that only certain people were being eliminated by the Ripper if the five (or more - what the hell, let's add Tabram to the mix) close friends were being systematically eliminated. So I don't believe they were friends. Nodding acquaintances, perhaps, as Mrs Maxwell was with Mary Kelly, especially in such a limited area, but not a circle of friends. John - true about Tully stating that Eddowes slept in a shed at the foot of Miller's Court; this was also pointed out in Bruce Paley's Jack the Ripper: The Simple Truth. I don't, however, attach the same weight to it that Messrs Tully and Paley do. The Lloyd's story was printed before a formal, complete identification of Eddowes was made, and it is instructive to read the Telegraph for the same period; it reports two occurrences when Eddowes was cautiously identified by people who thought they knew her, one time believing her to be a 'Phoebe the Jewess' and another time believing her to be a sister who, upon investigation, turned out to still be alive (shades of Mary Malcolm!). The important point to remember is that both of these 'identifications' were made by people who were absolutely certain they knew who Eddowes was, but in the first case they had no notion of her real name or her antecedents, and in the second it was a case of blatantly mistaken identity. Neither Lloyd's nor the Telegraph give real sources for their Miller's Court asseveration, and it appears to have sprung from what we would call 'the word on the street,' with the November DT story perhaps a recollection of the earlier Lloyd's. Which is not to say that the story could not be true, only that it does not appear to have been true. We certainly never hear John Kelly admitting to this oddity in Eddowes' nocturnal sleeping arrangements. I apologise for not quoting chapter and verse here, but can certainly do so if you wish, so you don't think I am simply making things up off the top of my head :-). CMD
Author: Ashleah Skinner Tuesday, 20 August 2002 - 11:08 pm
My more biased view is that they did know each other, maybe not all but some did and well some didnt or just not well enough
Author: alex chisholm Wednesday, 21 August 2002 - 08:31 am
The story of Eddowes occasionally seeking shelter in the �Dorset-street Shed� first appears in the Daily Telegraph, 3 Oct. 1888. This report was then repeated, virtually word for word, in Lloyds Weekly, 7 Oct. 1888. With Kelly�s murder, the Daily Telegraph once more refers to Eddowes supposed Dorset-street connection on 10 Nov. 1888, before the story is again carried by Lloyds Weekly, 11 Nov. 1888. So, in order to fully appreciate the dubious nature of Eddowes� Dorset-street connection, I think the story needs to be considered at its source. Daily Telegraph, 3 Oct. p3, states that Eddowes: �had times without number been in so abject a state of destitution as to be compelled to share the nightly refuge - a shed in Dorset-street - of a score or so of houseless waifs, penniless prostitutes like herself, without a friend, a name, or even a nickname.� The same paper later clarifies the origin of this claim, as follows: �It appears that Detective-Sergeant Outram, of the City Police, came to the mortuary in Golden-lane, with a party of six women and a man. Some of the former had, it is said, described the clothing of the deceased so accurately that they were allowed to confirm their belief by viewing it at the Bishopsgate-street Police-station. Subsequently they were taken to the chief office in Old Jewry, and thence conducted to the mortuary. Here two of the women positively identified the deceased as an associate, but they did not know her by name. She does not seem to have borne a nickname. They were ignorant of her family connections or her antecedents, and did not know whether she had lived with any man. The dead woman had, in fact, belonged to the lowest class, and frequently was without the money to obtain admission to the common lodging-houses. Whenever she was in this impecunious state she had, in the company of the women who now identified her body, slept in a shed off Dorset-street, which is the nightly refuge of some ten to twenty houseless creatures who are without the means of paying for their beds.� This, I think, is hardly an account to inspire confidence in the reliability of anything these women had to say. Best Wishes alex
Author: John Savage Wednesday, 21 August 2002 - 02:44 pm
CMD - ALEX Thanks for your posts re. the shed in Dorset Street. I regret that I have never had the time to go to Colindale and read the full reports in the newspapers, so the information you have given me is most interesting. Must add that I have never been to sure what, if any, significance this story has; but never the less I find it intriguing, and always try to keep an open mind on such things. Once again my thanks. John Savage
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 21 August 2002 - 04:21 pm
Hi, John and Alex: Thank you, Alex, for posting that information from the Daily Telegraph, 3 October 1888, about Kate Eddowes supposedly using the Dorset Street shed. Looking dispassionately at the origin of the story of a Dorset Street connection for Catherine Eddowes, one thing that we can say is that this connection has been often used by those who want to link the victims together for reasons of furthering a conspiracy theory, as in the Royal theory or those who say that Eddowes was killed because she sometimes used the name "Kelly" and therefore was killed by mistake by someone who was trying to kill Mary Jane Kelly. It strikes me that the supposed "identification" by "party of six women and a man" might have been by a group of people who wanted their share of the limelight and perhaps does not pass muster any more than the woman at the Stride inquest who was insistent that the woman killed in Berner Street, i.e., Liz Stride, was her sister, but who was subsequently proven to be wrong. Best regards Chris George
Author: alex chisholm Wednesday, 21 August 2002 - 07:20 pm
Hi Chris I wholeheartedly agree with your thoughts on this story. Any claims made by such witnesses must be regarded with a good deal of scepticism. I also hold the view that, had the slightest suspicion of any real connection between the victims existed at the time, the press would have had a field-day. Still, Eddowes� pawn-ticket, made out in the name of Jane Kelly, 6 Dorset-street, on 28 Sept., does leave me with some niggling uncertainty, and so the possibility of Eddowes in Dorset-street cannot be discounted completely. At the very least, as John says, the possibility is intriguing. All the Best alex
Author: Jack Traisson Thursday, 22 August 2002 - 04:48 am
Hi Alex, Chris, John, Ashleah, CMD, I have always thought it possible (if the Eddowes shed story is true) that it need not have been in Miller's Court, it may have been in New Court. Correct me if I'm wrong but only a shed off Dorset Street is mentioned in the articles. McCarthy doesn't strike me as a man who would allow vagrants to use freely use his property. Cheers, John
Author: alex chisholm Thursday, 22 August 2002 - 06:24 am
Hi John According to the Telegraph the 'shed' was the ground-floor front of 26 Dorset Street. Daily Telegraph, 10 Nov. p5, describes the house in which Kelly was living as follows: �It has seven rooms, the first-floor front, facing Dorset-street, being over a shed or warehouse used for the storage of costers� barrows. ..... Curiously enough, the warehouse at No. 26, now closed by large doors, was until a few weeks ago the nightly resort of poor homeless creatures, who went there for shelter. One of these women was Catherine Eddowes, the woman who was murdered in Mitre-square.� Best Wishes alex
Author: Jack Traisson Thursday, 22 August 2002 - 03:31 pm
Alex, Thanks for the clarification. I have found the article and read it. The November 10 article does makes me wonder about its credibity, that there is a hoped for connection between the Eddowes and Kelly murders. Indeed, I agree with most of the conclusions on this thread; it seems that were the Eddowes shed story valid, the press and police would surely have jumped on it in an attempt to corroborate the alleged connection. If the story had originated from John Kelly, or at least confirmed by him, then it would be a matter worthy of intense scrutiny. Until a solid connection can be found it appears to me to be another one of those frustrating little points that dot the JtR landscape. Cheers, John
Author: John Savage Thursday, 22 August 2002 - 04:34 pm
Alex Thanks for your post, and on the subject of the pawn ticket,whilst the Daily Telegraph of 2nd. October gives the name as Jane Kelly, the Times of the same date gives the name as Ann Kelly. Yet another newspaper (my own local rag) of 11th. October gives the name as Sarah Ann Kelly. Now as far as I am aware these two pawn tickets are not included in the list of Eddowes possesions, nor I beliver were they amongst the evidence at the inquest. Any ideas as to what happened to them? Regards, John Savage
Author: david rhea Thursday, 22 August 2002 - 04:38 pm
It is interesting to me that he chose those particular women, ages and all.Ivor states that serial killers select those close to their own age.I don't know about that. The supply of females was unlimited. You could get a 12 or 13 year old for 2 shillings, and that was not a rare case.When you think of Tabram she was a Soldier's whore which meant that she was the cheapest around.These particular women seem to say whether you like it or not that Jack had a sense of sentiment.He chose ,to him the has been and bags, to exterminate.Mary Kelly, I admit is different, but that is a lengthy discussion with no real resolution.In order to do what he thought he had to do he got rid of the weakest as any true carnivore would do.I am sure he had no conscience pangs. These ladies served his purpose. He could have chosen an entirely different set to drain the blood and remove certain organs from, but no he chose this particular set.Did they know one another? I wouldn't be surprised.Those who were killed were known to certain of their constituants.
Author: David O'Flaherty Thursday, 22 August 2002 - 05:25 pm
Hi, John Pardon my interruption (I know your question is directed to Alex). During the Eddowes inquest, Crawford produced the ticket for John Kelly's boots to establish the date Kate pawned them (which was Friday, Sept. 28th). Inspector Collard testified that both tickets were found in a mustard tin near the body by Sgt. Jones. I have no idea why they weren't included on the official list--maybe Alex will know. I wonder, too, about what happened to them--perhaps they were ultimately turned over to Annie Phillips, the next of kin? Best, Dave
Author: alex chisholm Thursday, 22 August 2002 - 09:42 pm
Hi John I�m afraid I can�t add to David�s information about the pawn tickets. They were found in a mustard tin in Mitre Square by Sergeant Jones, and handed to Inspector Collard. The pledged items were recovered and the pawn-broker interviewed, without significant result. The ticket for the boots was produced at the inquest on 4 Oct., by City solicitor Mr. Crawford, to establish that the boots had been pledged on Friday, 28 Sept., despite Kelly�s belief that Eddowes had pawned them in his company on the morning of Saturday, 29 Sept. What happened to the tickets after that, I don�t know. Annie Phillips may well have claimed them, as David suggests. Perhaps the tickets were not included among the list of Eddowes possessions because they were found a few feet from the body, and it was not clear at the outset that the tickets had any connection with Eddowes or her murderer. But here again, I just don�t know. Sorry. As for the various reported names on the boot ticket, not having read your �local rag� I couldn�t comment on that. The Times, 2 Oct., however, does indeed name Anne Kelly, as does the Star, 1 Oct. The Telegraph, 2 Oct., on the other hand, reports the name as Jane Kelly, as does the Pall Mall Gazette, 1 Oct. Personally, I believe the Daily Telegraph offers the most detailed, relatively reliable coverage of the main dailies of the time, but I�m also an avid admirer of the Star (the 1888 incarnation, that is). If I had to make a choice between Anne or Jane, however, I would tentatively plump for Jane. The reason being that the PMG and Telegraph reports are substantially more detailed, and evidently more accurate than the Star and Times� coverage on the pawn tickets. The PMG and Telegraph provide not only the name but the evidently given address of the pledgor, the Star and Times do not. The PMG and Telegraph also provide the evidently correct dates of the pledges, while the Star and Times report both pledges being made in August. I would, therefore, tend to place more reliance on the name on the ticket being Jane rather than Anne. But again I can�t be certain. Best Wishes alex
Author: David O'Flaherty Thursday, 22 August 2002 - 10:59 pm
Thanks, alex for that tidbit that the pawned items were recovered. I wonder if John Kelly ever got his shoes back.
Author: Stewart P Evans Friday, 23 August 2002 - 02:00 am
It is clear from Inspector Collard's inquest statement that the items found at the scene of Eddowes' murder were listed separately to those actually found on the body at the mortuary. Hence, the 3 small black buttons, small metal button, common metal thimble and small mustard tin containing 2 pawn tickets, found lying to the left side of the body by Sergeant Jones and handed to Collard, do not appear on the list of items found on the body. Undoubtedly they belonged to Eddowes but they were separately recovered and thus separately recorded. This would be normal police practice. Obviously items found near the body may have originated from another source [e.g. dropped by the killer, or already lying there on the ground], but this would be unlikely.
Author: alex chisholm Friday, 23 August 2002 - 06:15 am
Hi David I can't think of any official confirmation that the pawned articles were recovered by the police, but the Star, 1 Oct. 1888, p3, reported the following: �The articles pledged at Jones�s, the pawnbroker, in Church-street, have been taken away by Detective-Inspector McWilliams, who has charge of the case.� As it appears to be a likely course of action, I think in the main this Star report is probably correct. But as for what happened to the articles after this, again I don�t know. Best Wishes alex
Author: Martin Fido Friday, 23 August 2002 - 06:24 am
Hi Stewart! I wonder whether you have any suggestion to explain the pair of spectacles included in the press list of Eddowes' possessions, but missing from the police lists? The difference has has intrigued me ever since I spotted it. All the best, Martin
Author: Stewart P Evans Friday, 23 August 2002 - 07:31 am
Hi Martin, Yes, the list of property given in The Times does include "a portion of a pair of spectacles", and, for that matter, "a printed handbill with the name 'Frank Cater 405 Bethnal-green-road' upon it". Why these items were listed in some press reports yet do not appear in the official reports may only be guessed at. The reasons may be as simple as mere errors of reporting, mis-transcription or, for those with a conspiratorial turn of mind, deliberately omitted. The list of property and Inspector Collard's statement are preserved with the inquest papers held at the CLRO. The first-hand police notes, statements and pocket books written at the time no longer exist, but probably contained the answers. Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Friday, 23 August 2002 - 03:58 pm
Tom Wescott does not address the spectacles, but does talk about the career of Frank Cater in the next (October) issue of RN, along with the property list and Collard's statement. Just a 'heads-up' to intrigue you. CMD
Author: Martin Fido Saturday, 24 August 2002 - 08:07 am
Many thanks for the response, Stewart. It always seemed to me that broken spectacles were an oddly prominent item to be either overlooked in the police listing or inadvertently added to a press report, so I'd wondered whether you'd come across any similar discrepancies, either professionally in the police, or in your massive coverage of the files. But I guess we're all still guessing. All the best, Martin
Author: Timsta Saturday, 24 August 2002 - 12:40 pm
C-M: Was Frank Cater any relation to DCI Frank Cater, Nipper Read's right hand man in the Kray twins investigation, do you suppose? Perhaps I should just cough up for a RN subscription and find out. Regards Timsta
Author: Garry Wroe Saturday, 24 August 2002 - 08:41 pm
Hi Timsta. DCI Frank Cater was born (in 1929) and brought up in Fulham and at one point lived close to the Chelsea football ground. His grandfather, Joe Cater, originated from Ely, Cambridgeshire. In his teens Joe left home to join a circus and settled in London during the 1890s. Any more than that, I don't know. Regards, Garry Wroe.
Author: Timsta Sunday, 25 August 2002 - 11:30 am
Garry: Your knowledge quite literally astounds me. C-M: any indication of a link to the Bethnal Green Caters? Regards Timsta
Author: Keith Skinner Wednesday, 28 August 2002 - 03:57 am
Poking my nose into this discussion reminded me that, back in 1995, I had noted and filed the following :- "Again, it may perhaps surprise you to learn that five out of the poor women who were the victims of the Whitechapel murderer, a couple of years ago, had been in the Millbank Prison, and that one of them was released from the place and received a gift of clothes from me within twenty-four hours of her murder. But you will be doubtless more astonished to know that the last murder was the indirect cause of no less than four women coming to prison. Three of these cases were acquaintances and near neighbours of the poor murdered girl. They saw all the horrors which were disclosed when the room where the dead woman lay was entered, and what with their "upset feelings" as they said, and their being called upon in public-houses to narrate what they had seen, their subsequent presence at Millbank through drink was a result simply inevitable." 'Work Among The Fallen' (1890) Rev George Purcell Merrick
Author: Neal Shelden Wednesday, 28 August 2002 - 01:30 pm
Reading Keith's post above just reminded of something that I was told by my brother in about the early 1990's. My brother used to work at the Old Bailey in London and knew people that took care of the area under the Bailey that was part of the old Newgate Prison. He got talking oneday to a colleague down there about Jack the Ripper. Apparently, it was passed down through the years that the Ripper was imprisoned there for another crime??
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 28 August 2002 - 03:24 pm
Hi, Neal: Could the story you heard about that the Ripper was imprisoned Newgate Prison for another crime be actually just the fact that George Chapman (Severin Klosowski) was imprisoned then hanged for "another crime" and was suspected by some of having been the Ripper. Although I am not sure that George Chapman was in Newgate -- perhaps someone can confirm -- his circumstances could fit this story. Another candidate, of course, might be Neill Cream, another murderer likewise executed for other crimes but suspected by some as a suspect in the Ripper murders. All the best Chris George
Author: Neal Shelden Wednesday, 28 August 2002 - 07:08 pm
Hi Chris, Klosowski or Cream are probables. I thought that even Tumblety and Ostrog also appeared at the Bailey once? It's a real pity that the name wasn't passed down to present day, although it was probably one of the above, it would've been interesting if it was a different name than the ones already known to us. My brother used to tell me that there were records down there that dated from 1888, but only the people that worked there had access. All the best Neal
Author: John Savage Wednesday, 28 August 2002 - 07:49 pm
Keith, A facinating snippet, thank you, I shall certainly try to obtain the book by Re. Merrick that you quote, as I think it may be intereting background material. In the meantime do you know if he was R.C. or C of E? Regards, John Savage
Author: Ashleah Skinner Sunday, 22 September 2002 - 03:55 am
Hi, below is a news article from "The London Times" November 10 1888 it has good information and raises the question on Nichols and Kelly being aquitance: Report as Printed in the London Times During the early hours of yesterday morning another murder of a most revolting and fiendish character took place in Spitalfields. This is the seventh which has occurred in this immediate neighbourhood, and the character of the mutilations leaves very little doubt that the murderer in this instance is the same person who has committed the previous ones, with which the public are fully acquainted. The scene of this last crime is at No 26 Dorset Street, Spitalfields, which is about 200 yards distant from 35 Hanbury Street, where the unfortunate woman, Mary Ann Nicholls, was so foully murdered. Although the victim, whose name is Mary Ann (or Mary Jane) Kelly, resides at the above number, the entrance to the room she occupied is up a narrow court, in which are some half-a-dozen houses, and which is known as Miller's Court; it is entirely separated from the other portion of the house, and has an entrance leading into the court. The room is known by the title of No 13. The house is rented by John M'Carthy, who keeps a small general shop at No 27 Dorset Street, and the whole of the rooms are let out to tenants of a very poor class. As an instance of the poverty of the neighbourhood, it may be mentioned that nearly the whole of the houses in this street are common lodging-houses, and the one opposite where the murder was enacted has accommodation for some 300 men, and is fully occupied every night. About 12 months ago Kelly, who was about 24 years of age, and who was considered a good-looking woman, of fair and fresh complexion, came to Mr M'Carthy, with a man named Joseph Kelly, who she stated was her husband, and who was a porter employed at Spitalfields Market. They rented a room on the ground floor, the same in which the poor woman was murdered, at a rental of 4s a week. It had been noticed that the deceased woman was somewhat addicted to drink, but Mr M'Carthy denied having any knowledge that she had been leading a loose or immoral life. That this was so, however, there can be no doubt, for about a fortnight ago she had a quarrel with Kelly, and after blows had been exchanged, the man left the house, or rather room, and did not return. It has since been ascertained that he went to live at Buller's common lodging-house in Bishopsgate Street. Since then the woman has supported herself as best as she could, and the police have ascertained that she has been walking the streets. None of those living at the court or at 26 Dorset Street, saw anything of the unfortunate creature after about 8 o'clock on Thursday evening, but she was seen in Commercial-street, shortly before the closing of the public house, and then had the appearance of being the worse for drink. About 1 o'clock yesterday morning a person living in the court opposite to the room occupied by the woman heard her singing the song "Sweet Violets," but this person is unable to say whether any one else was with her at that time. Nothing more was seen or heard of her until her dead body was found. At a quarter to 11 yesterday morning, as the woman was 35s [thirty five shillings] in arrears with her rent, Mr M'Carthy said to a man employed by him in his shop, John Bowyer, "Go to No 13 (meaning the room occupied by Kelly) and try and get some rent." Bowyer did as he was directed, and on knocking at the door was unable to obtain an answer. He then turned the handle of the door, and found it was locked. On looking through the keyhole he found the key was missing. The left-hand side of the room faced the court, and in it were two large windows. Bowyer, knowing that when the man Kelly and the dead woman had their quarrel a pane of glass in one of the windows was broken, went round the side in question. He put his hand through the aperture and pulled aside the muslin curtain which covered it. On his looking into the room a shocking sight presented itself. He could see the woman lying on the bed entirely naked, covered with blood and apparently dead. Without waiting to make a closer examination he ran to his employer and told him he believed the woman Kelly had been murdered. M'Carthy at once went and looked through the broken window, and, satisfying himself that something was wrong, despatched Bowyer to the Commercial Street Police station, at the same time enjoining him not to tell any of the neighbours what he had discovered. Inspector Back H Division, who was in charge of the station at the time, accompanied Bowyer back, and on finding that a murder had been committed at once sent for assistance. Dr Phillips, the divisional surgeon of police, and Superintendent Arnold were also sent for. During this time the door had not been touched. On the arrival of the Superintendent Arnold he caused a telegram to be sent direct to Sir Charles Warren, informing him what had happened. Mr Arnold, having satisfied himself that the woman was dead, ordered one of the windows to be entirely removed. A horrible and sickening sight then presented itself. The poor woman lay on her back on the bed, entirely naked. Her throat was cut from ear to ear, right down to the spinal column. The ears and nose had been cut clean off. The breasts had also been cleanly cut off and placed on a table which was by the side of the bed. The stomach and abdomen had been ripped open, while the face was slashed about, so that the features of the poor creature were beyond all recognition. The kidneys and heart had also been removed from the body, and placed on the table by the side of the breasts. The liver had likewise been removed, and laid on the right thigh The lower portion of the body and the uterus had been cut out, and these appeared to be missing. The thighs had been cut. A more horrible or sickening sight could not be imagined. The clothes of the woman were lying by the side of the bed, as though they had been taken off and laid down in the ordinary manner. While this examination was being made a photographer, who, in the meantime, had been sent for, arrived and took photographs of the body, the organs, the room, and its contents. Superintendent Arnold then had the door of the room forced. It was a very poorly furnished apartment, about 12 ft. square, there being only an old bedstead, two old tables and a chair in it. The bedclothes had been turned down, and this was probably done by the murderer after he had cut his victim's throat. There was no appearance of a struggle having taken place, and, although a careful search of the room was made, no knife or instrument of any kind was found. Dr Phillips, on his arrival, carefully examined the body of the dead woman, and later on made a second examination in company with Dr Bond, from Westminster, Dr Gordon Brown, from the City, Dr Duke from Spitalfields, and Dr Phillip's assistant. Mr Anderson, the new Commissioner of Police, Detective Inspectors Reid and Abberline (Scotland Yard), Chief Inspector West, H Division, and other officers were quickly on the spot. After the examination of the body it was placed in a shell, which was put into a van and conveyed to the Shoreditch mortuary to await an inquest. From enquiries made among person living in the houses adjoining the court, and also those residing in rooms in No 26 it appears clear that no noise of any kind was heard. No suspicious or strange-looking man was seen to enter or leave the murdered woman's room, and up to the present time the occurrence is enveloped in as much mystery as were the previous murders. The man Kelly was quickly found, and his statement ascertained to be correct. After the examination the windows were boarded up, and the door padlocked by direction of the police, who have considerable difficulty in keeping the street clear of persons. Dr M'Donald, coroner in whose district the murder has happened has fixed Monday morning for the opening of the inquest, which will be held at Shoreditch Town-hall. It was reported that bloodhounds would be laid on to endeavour to trace the murderer, but for some reason this project was not carried out, and, of course, after the streets had became thronged with people that would have had no practical result. The street being principally composed of common lodging houses, persons are walking along it during all hours of the night, so that little notice is taken of any ordinarily attired men, the murderer, therefore, had a good chance of getting away unobserved. With regard to Kelly's movements just before the murder, a report says that she was seen as usual in the neighbourhood about 10 o'clock on Thursday evening in company with a man of whom, however, no description can be obtained. She was last seen, as far as can be ascertained, in Commercial-street about half-past 11. She was then alone, and was probably making her way home. It is supposed that she met the murderer in Commercial Street, and he probably induced her to take him home without indulging in more drink. At any rate, nothing more was seen of the couple in the neighbouring public houses, nor in the beerhouse at the corner of Dorset Street. The pair reached Millers Court about midnight, but they were not seen to enter the house. The street door was closed, but the woman had a latchkey, and, as she must have been fairly sober, she and her companion would have been able to enter the house and enter the woman's room without making a noise. A light was seen shining through the window of the room for some time after the couple must have entered it, and one person asserts positively that the woman was heard singing the refrain of a popular song as late as 1 o'clock yesterday morning, but here again there is a conflict of testimony which the police are now engaged in endeavouring to reconcile. The same reports, describing the removal of the mutilated body, says at 10 minutes to 4 o'clock a one-horse carrier's cart, with the ordinary tarpaulin cover was driven into Dorset Street, and halted opposite Millers-court. From the cart was taken a long shell or coffin, dirty and scratched with constant use. This was taken into the death chamber, and there the remains were temporarily coffined. The news that the body was about to be removed caused a great rush of people from the courts running out of Dorset Street, and there was a determined effort to break the police cordon at the Commercial Street end. The crowd, which pressed round the van, was of the humblest class, but the demeanour of the poor people was all that could be described. Ragged caps were doffed and slatternly-looking women shed tears as the shell, covered with a ragged-looking cloth, was placed in the van. The remains were taken to the Shoreditch Mortuary, where they will remain until they have been viewed by the coroner's jury. Mr John M'Carthy, the owner of the houses in Millers-court, who keeps a chandler's shop in Dorset Street, has made the following statement as to the murdered woman: The victim of this terrible murder was about 23 or 24 years of age, and lived with a coal porter named Kelly, passing as his wife. They, however, quarrelled sometime back and separated. A woman named Harvey slept with her several nights since Kelly separated from her, but she was not with her last night. The deceased's christian name was Mary Jane, and since her murder I have discovered that she walked the streets in the neighbourhood of Aldgate. Her habits were irregular, and she often came home at night the worse for drink. Her mother lives in Ireland, but in what county I do not know. Deceased used to receive letters from her occasionally. The unfortunate woman had not paid her rent for several weeks; in fact she owed 30s altogether, so this morning I sent my man to ask if she could pay the money. He knocked at the door, but received no answer. Thinking this very strange he looked in at the window, and to his horror he saw the body of Kelly lying on the bed covered with blood. He immediately came back to me, and told me what he had seen. I was, of course, as horrified as he was, and I went with him to the house and looked in at the window. The sight I saw was more ghastly even than I had prepared myself for. On the bed lay the body as my man had told me, while the table was covered with what seemed to me to be lumps of flesh. I said to my main "Go at once to the police station and fetch some one here." He went off at once and brought back Inspector Back who looked through the window as we had done. He then despatched a telegram to superintendent Arnold, but before Superintendent Arnold arrived, Inspector Abberline came and gave orders that no one should be allowed to enter or leave the court. The Inspector waited a little while and then sent a telegram to Sir Charles Warren to bring the bloodhounds, so as to trace the murderer if possible. So soon as Superintendent Arnold arrived he gave instructions for the door to be burst open. I at once forced the door with a pickaxe, and we entered the room. The sight w saw I cannot drive away from my mind. It looked more like the work of a devil than of a man. The poor woman's body was lying on the bed, undressed. She had been completely disembowelled, and her entrails has been taken out and placed on the table. It was those that I had seen when I looked through the window and took to be lumps of flesh. The woman's nose had been cut off, and her face gashed beyond recognition. Both her breasts too had been cut clean away and placed by the side of her liver and other entrails on the table. I had heard a great deal about the Whitechapel murders, but I declare to god I had never expected to see such a sight as this. The body was, of course, covered with blood, and so was the bed. The whole scene is more than I can describe. I hope I may never see such a sight again. It is most extraordinary that nothing should have been heard by the neighbours, as there are people passing backwards and forwards at all hours of the night, but no one heard so much as a scream. I woman heard Kelly singing "Sweet Violets" at 1 o'clock this morning. So up to that time, at all events, she was alive and well. So far as I can ascertain no one saw her take a man into the house with her last night. A correspondent who last night saw the room in which the murder was committed, says it was a tenement by itself, having formerly been the back parlour of No 26, Dorset Street. A partition had been erected, cutting it off from the house, and the entrance door opened into Miller's Court. The two windows also faced the court, and, as the body could be seen from the court yesterday morning, it is evident that, unless the murderer perpetrated his crime with the light turned out, any person passing by could have witnessed the deed. The lock of the door was a spring one, and the murderer apparently took the key away with him when he left, as it cannot be found. The more the facts are investigated, the more apparent becomes the cool daring of the murderer. There are six houses in the court besides the tenement occupied by the deceased. The door of Kelly's room is just on the right-hand side on entering from the street, and other houses -- three on either side -- are higher up the passage. The young woman Harvey, who had slept with the deceased on several occasions has made a statement to the effect that she had been on good terms with the deceased, whose education was much superior to that of most persons in her position in life. Harvey, however, took a room in New Court, off the same street, but remained friendly with the unfortunate woman, who visited her in New Court on Thursday night. After drinking together they parted at half past 7 o'clock, Kelly going off in the direction of Leman Street which she was in the habit of frequenting. She was perfectly sober at the time. Harvey never saw her alive afterwards. Joseph Barnett, an Irishman, at present residing in a common lodgingh ouse in New Street, Bishopsgate, informed a reporter last evening that he had occupied his present lodgings since Tuesday week. Previously to that he had lived in Miller's Court, Dorset Street for eight or nine months with the murdered woman Mary Jane Kelly. They were very happy and comfortable together until another woman came to sleep in the room, to which he strongly objected. Finally, after the woman had been there two or three nights he quarrelled with the woman whom he called his wife and left her. The next day, however, he returned and gave Kelly money. He called several other days and gave her money when he had it. On Thursday night he visited her between half past 7 and 8 and told her he was sorry he had no money to give her. He saw nothing more of her. She used occasionally to go to the Elephant and Castle district to visit a friend who was in the same position as herself. Another account gives the following details: Kelly had a little boy, aged about 6 or 7 years living with her, and latterly she had been in narrow straits, so much so that she is reported to have stated to a companion that she would make away with herself, as she could not bear to see her boy starving. There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who states that at about half-past 10 o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset Street, who said to her that she had no money and, if she could not get any, would never go out any more but would do away with herself. Soon afterwards they parted, and a man, who is described as respectably dressed, came up, and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man then accompanied the woman to her lodgings, which are on the second floor, and the little boy was removed from the room and taken to a neighbour's house. Nothing more was seen of the woman until yesterday morning, when it is stated that the little boy was sent back into the house, and the report goes, he was sent out subsequently on an errand by the man who was in the house with his mother. There is no direct confirmation of this statement. A tailor named Lewis says he saw Kelly come out about 8 o'clock yesterday morning and go back. Another statement is to the effect that Kelly was seen in a public-house known as the Ringers at the corner of Dorset Street and Commercial Street, about 10 o'clock yesterday morning, and that she met there her lover, Barnet and had a glass of beer with him. This statement is also not substantiated. A somewhat important fact has been pointed out, which puts a fresh complexion on the theory of the murders. It appears that cattle boats bringing in live freight to London are in the habit of coming into the Thames on Thursdays or Fridays, and leave for the continent on Sundays or Mondays. It has already been a matter of comment that the recent revolting crimes have been committed at the week's end, and an opinion has been formed among some of the detectives that the murderer is a drover or butcher employed on one of these boats -- of which there are many -- and that he periodically appears and disappears with one of the steamers. This theory is held to be of much importance by those engaged in this investigation, who believe that the murderer does not reside either in the locality or even in the country at all. It is thought that he may be either a person employed upon one of these boats or one who is allowed to travel by them, and inquiries have been directed to follow up the theory. It is pointed out that at the inquests on the previous victims the coroners have expressed the opinion that the knowledge of anatomy possessed by a butcher would have been sufficient to enable him to find and cut out the parts of the body which in several cases were abstracted. The Whitechapel Vigilance Committee who have recently relaxed their efforts to find the murderer, have called a meeting for Tuesday evening next, at the Paul's Head Tavern, Crispin-street, Spitalfields, to consider what steps they can take to assist the police. A Mrs Paumier, a young woman who sells roasted chestnuts at the corner of Widegate Street, a narrow thoroughfare about two minutes' walk from the scene of the murder, told a reporter yesterday afternoon a story which appears to afford a clue to the murderer. She said that about 12 o'clock that morning a man dressed like a gentleman came up to her and said, "I suppose you have heard about the murder in Dorset Street?" She replied that she had, whereupon the man grinned and said, "I know more about it than you." He then stared into her face and went down Sandy's Row, another narrow thoroughfare which cuts across Widegate Street. Whence he had got some way off, however, he vanished. Mrs Paumier said the man had a black moustache, was about 5ft 6in, high, and wore a black silk hat, a black coat, and speckled trousers. He also carried a black shiny bag about a foot in depth and a foot and a half in length. Mrs Paumier stated further that the same man accosted three young women, whom she knew, on Thursday night, and they chaffed him and asked him what he had in the bag, and he replied, "Something that the ladies don't like." One of the three young women she named, Sarah Roney, a girl about 20 years of age, states that she was with two other girls on Thursday night in Brushfield-street which is near Dorset Street, when a man wearing a tall hat and a black coat, and carrying a black bag, came up to her and said, "Will you come with me?" She told him that she would not, and asked him what he had in the bag, and he said, "Something the ladies don't like." He then walked away. A further report received late last night says: -- "Not the slightest doubt appears to be entertained in official headquarters that this fresh crime is by the same hand which committed the others. There is also, it is to be noted, a striking similarity of the month in which the crime has been committed, for while two of the most atrocious of the other murders in the same district were committed on the 7th of the month of September and August, this was committed on the 8th -- approximately the same period in the month. This would seem to indicate that the murderer was absent from the scene of these horrors for fixed periods, and that his return was always about the same time. The late storms might account for the crime on this occasion being a day later, the suggestion, of course, being that the murderer journeys across the sea on some of the short passages. "Last night nothing further was known at Scotland Yard. In fact, all the enquiries centre in the east of London, whither have been sent some of the keenest investigators of the country. The murders, so cunningly continued, are carried out with a completeness which altogether baffles investigators. Not a trace is left of the murderer, and there is no purpose in the crime to afford the slightest clue, such as would be afforded in other crimes almost without exception. All that the police can hope is that some accidental circumstance will lead to a trace which may be followed to a successful conclusion." The latest account states upon what professes to be indisputable authority that no portion of the woman's body was taken away by the murderer. As already stated, the post-mortem examination was of the most exhaustive character, and surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as closely as possible in its natural position. A man's pilot coat has been found in the murdered woman's room, but whether it belonged to one of her paramours or to the murderer has not been ascertained. Late yesterday evening a man was arrested near Dorset Street on suspicion of being concerned in the murder. He was taken to Commercial Street police-station, followed by a howling mob, and is still detained there. Another man, respectably dressed, wearing a slouch hat and carrying a black bag was arrested and taken to Leman Street station. The bag was examined, but its contents were perfectly harmless, and the man was at once released.

Add a Message