Taken in its relation to the present intense excitement over the East end horror, the place of supreme importance this month must be given to the elaborate and somewhat laboured article of Dr. George L. Savage on "Homicidal Mania." It is a valuable contribution, just at the right moment, to a controversy of paramount interest. Its author lays great stress upon the imitative tastes of maniacs, but carries his contention much too far, we think, when he rails against the publicity which the Press gives to the details of notorious crimes. This very publicity has often led to the detection and punishment of the criminal. In reference to the Whitechapel murders, up to the time of the butchery of Annie Chapman, Dr. Savage remarks: "I may suggest a few points of special interest. First, the murders may not all have been committed by one man. There is a fashion in murder, or, rather, there are epidemics of similar crimes; or, again, the imitative action may have come into play. I do not think that any epileptic or drunken maniac would have so cunningly selected his victims and avoided detection, and the failure to identify anyone is in favour of there being only one agent. A mere lust for blood would not have been satisfied by the selection of victims. the skill with which the murders were perpetrated, and the skill of the mutilation point to some one with some anatomical knowledge. This might be possessed by a butcher, or some one who had had medical knowledge; but there are so many nowadays with mechanical knowledge of the body, in the form of post mortem room and anatomy room porters, that to suppose the murders to be the work of a medical man, is, to my thinking, going too far. The cunning of the evasion, the ferocity of the crimes, the special selection of the victims, seem to me to depend either on a fiendishly criminal revenge, or else upon some fully organised delusion of persecution or world regeneration." The article bristles with entertaining and apparently well authenticated facts.
The contemporary who averred yesterday that the majority of the inhabitants of West and Central London know about as much of the neighbourhood of Whitechapel as they do of the Hindoo Koosh or the Northern Territory of South Australia considerably understated the case. When a moderately intelligent traveller returns from either of these regions he will be "lionised" in drawing rooms; should his return happen to coincide with the annual meeting of the British Association, he will be enthusiastically invited to recount his experiences and be eagerly listened to; should Messrs. Mudie and Smith put into circulation a book of his on the subject, the fair denizens of West and Central London will, at any rate, pretend to have read it and canvass its merits at their "at homes," the men will be genuinely interested. Mayhew, Hollingshead, James Greenwood, and George Sims, after them, had first of all to cut their narrative about "poor and ragged London" into slices and even then it may be doubted whether the instalments were exceedingly palatable to Society, with a big capital, whatever they may have been to the rest of the world. of course, there were, and are, a great many good and philanthropic people who read these accounts, but they did not and do not pretend to derive much amusement from them. With the most laudable intentions possible they perused and shook their heads over them, bewailing the depravity and poverty, the lack of cleanliness and the improvidence of these "stepchildren of civilisation." They probably formed themselves into one or more committees to make them morally and physically comfortable, to at least inculcate the elementary principles of domestic hygiene and sanitation, to impress upon them the necessity of saving for a rainy day, &c., &c. To this end they departed - not unprovided with tracts - to the purlieus of Mile End, Stepney, Bethnal Green, Lambeth, &c. and those that saw them depart lauded their heroism and spoke with bated breath of their expeditions. They were interested for a little while, perhaps, but amused they were not. Nor were those that went. They only saw the serious side of the business, and in their endeavour to impress that serious side upon their so called proteges, they bored them to death.
They applied pretty much the same tactics everywhere, and everywhere they succeeded in being tolerated for the sake of the material benefits they bestowed, except in the East of London. The East of London, I have in my mind's eye, is bounded on the east by the Mile End Gate, to the South by cable street, to the North by Finsbury Pavement, to the West by Aldgate Pump. If the reader will take a moderately large map of London, he will be able to judge for himself the extent of the tract of ground, the occupants of which have almost to a man remained refractory to the exhortations of well meaning, but essentially impolitic reformers, to mend their ways. Does this mean that they are poorer, more degraded, more uncleanly, or greater spendthrifts than the denizens of the back slums in the Old Kent road, Marylebone, Westminster, and Lambeth? Does it mean that increasing natural civilisation and its more or less consequent mental development have had no effect upon them? Not at all. If anything the majority of the lower class inhabitants of Whitechapel and Commercial roads are not as poor as the lower classes of other quarters. If anything, notwithstanding the recent revelations, they are not as degraded. Their cleanliness leaves perhaps as much to desire as elsewhere, though this bodily neglect is in many cases not so apparent as there, because of the better kind of clothing - not entirely lacking in ornament - worn by all but the most destitute. As regards their improvidence, I cannot say much though, on the issue of it, I should imagine that of saving less they are more provident than their fellow townsmen of the same category.
Lest the above should appear a paradox I explain. The Whitechapel population spend their money as freely, if not more so, than the proletariat of other districts, but they get better value for it. Their love of personal finery extends to their homes, and I will undertake to say that one will find a considerably greater quantity of decently, sometimes even prettily, furnished apartments and small houses belonging to the humbler classes round about the Commercial, Whitechapel, New and Cambridge Heath roads than in any other part of the metropolis. Of course I repeat that I am strictly speaking of the very humblest.
Are these differences due to what, for want of a better term, I may call preaching on the part of amateur missionaries, lady district visitors, and the like? By no means. They are due in a great measure, perhaps entirely, to the example of the non-Christian population by which this Christian population is, as it were, hemmed in. In order to make this clear, let us watch the Jew, the poorer as well as the more fortunate one, in his habit as he lives down Whitechapel way, which is still, notwithstanding the many migrations of his co-religionists, the Jewish headquarters. Let us look at him with all his virtues, and all his faults upon him at home, at work, at play. Let us endeavour to find out the things his Christian brother unconsciously adopts from him. I have said unconsciously, I might have said unwillingly; for, not to mince matters, the latter has undisguised contempt for him. I know beforehand that this will be denied by persons who in their heart of hearts are as convinced of the truth of this statement as the writer of these lines, but who will think it necessary to jump into the breach for the sake, as they would probably express it, of that religious tolerance which is commonly supposed to be the inheritance of the nineteenth century. Let me add at the outset that the dislike inspired by the Jews in Whitechapel in the majority of their Christian neighbours does not spring from divergent religious opinions. It springs from different causes which it would take too long to explain at the end of this article, but upon which I will comment in the next when I take the reader "Down Whitechapel Way." A.D.V.
At a recent meeting of the Whitechapel District Board of Works, the following resolution was passed: "That this board regards with horror and alarm the several atrocious murders recently perpetrated within the district of Whitechapel and its vicinity, and calls upon Sir Charles Warren so to regulate and strengthen the police force in the neighbourhood as to guard against any repetition of such atrocities." In reply thereto Sir Charles Warren has sent the following letter:
Sir - In reply to a letter of the 2nd inst. from the clerk to the Board of Works for the Whitechapel district, transmitting a resolution of the Board with regard to the recent atrocious murders perpetrated in and about Whitechapel, I have to point out that the carrying out of your proposal as to regulating and strengthening the police force in your district cannot possibly do more than guard or take precautions against any repetition of such atrocities so long as the victims actually but unwittingly connive at their own destruction. Statistics show that London, in comparison to its population, is the safest city in the world to live in. The prevention of murder cannot be effected by any strength of the police force, but it is reduced and brought to a minimum by rendering it most difficult to escape detection. In the particular class of murders now confronting us, however, the unfortunate victims appear to take the murderer to some retired spot and place themselves in such a position that they can be slaughtered without a sound being heard. The murder, therefore, takes place without any clue to the criminal being left. I have to request and call upon your Board, as popular representatives, to do all in your power to dissuade the unfortunate women about Whitechapel from going into lonely places in the dark with any persons, whether acquaintances or strangers.
I have also to point out that the purlieus about Whitechapel are most imperfectly lighted, and the darkness is an important assistant to crime. I can assure you, for the information of your Board, that every nerve has been strained to detect the criminal or criminals, and to render more difficult further atrocities. You will agree with me that it is not desirable that I should enter into particulars as to what the police are doing in the matter.
It is most important for good results that our proceedings should not be published, and the very fact that you may be unaware of what the Detective Department is doing is the stronger proof that it is doing its work with secrecy and efficiency. A large force of police has been drafted into the Whitechapel district to assist those already there to the full extent necessary to meet the requirements; but I have to observe that the Metropolitan Police have not large reserves doing nothing and ready to meet emergencies, but every man has his duty assigned, and I can only strengthen the Whitechapel district by drawing men from duty in other parts of the metropolis. You will be aware that the whole of the police work of the metropolis has to be done, as usual, while this extra work is going on, and that at such times as this extra precautions have to be taken to prevent the commission of other classes of crime being facilitated through the attention of the police being diverted to one special place and object.
I trust that your Board will assist the police by persuading the inhabitants to give them every information in their power concerning any suspicious character in the various dwellings, for which object 10,000 handbills, a copy of which I enclose, have been distributed.
I have read the reported proceedings of your meeting, and I regret to see that the greatest misconceptions appear to have arisen in the public mind as to recent action in the administration of the police. I beg you will dismiss from your minds as utterly fallacious the numerous anonymous statements as to recent changes stated to have been made in the police force of a character not conducive to efficiency.
It is stated that the Rev. Daniel Greatrex announced to you that one great cause of police inefficiency was a new system of police, whereby constables were constantly changed from one district to another, keeping them ignorant of their beats.
I have seen this statement made frequently in the newspapers lately, but it is entirely without foundation. The system at present in use has existed for the last 20 years, and constables are seldom or never drafted from their districts, except for promotion, or for some particular cause.
Notwithstanding the many good reasons why constables should be changed on their beats, I have considered the reasons on the other side to be more cogent, and have felt that they should be thoroughly acquainted with the districts in which they serve.
And with regard to the detective department - a department relative to which reticence is always most desirable - I may say that a short time ago I made arrangements which still further reduced the necessity for transferring officers from districts which they know thoroughly.
I have to call attention to the statement of one of your members, that in consequence of the change in the condition of Whitechapel in recent years, a thorough revision of the police arrangements is necessary, and I shall be very glad to ascertain from you what changes your Board consider advisable, and I may assure you that your proposals will receive from me every consideration.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Metropolitan Police Office,
4 Whitehall place, S.W., Oct. 3.
A letter appears in The Times today, in the above subject, of which the following is a copy:
Sir - Another remarkable letter has been written by some bad fellow who signs himself "Jack the Ripper." The letter is said to be smeared with blood, and there is on it the print in blood of the corrugated surface of a thumb. This may be that of a man or a woman. It is inconceivable that a woman has written or smeared such a letter, and therefore it may accepted as a fact that the impression in blood is that of a man's thumb.
The surface of a thumb so printed is as clearly indicated as are the printed letters from any kind of type. Thus there is a possibility of identifying the blood print on the letter with the thumb that made it, because the surface markings on no two thumbs are alike, and this is a low power used in a microscope could reveal.
I would suggest - (1) That it be proved if it is human blood, though this may not be material; (2) that the thumbs of every suspected man be compared by an expert with the blood print of a thumb on the letter; (3) that it be ascertained whether the print of a thumb is that of a man who works hard and has rough, coarse hands or whether that of one whose hands have not been roughened by labour; (4) whether the thumb was large or small; (5) whether the thumb print shows signs of any shakiness or tremor in the doing of it.
All this the microscope could reveal. The print of a thumb would give as good evidence as that of a boot or shoe.
We are enabled to present our readers this morning in the columns of the Evening News with the most startling information that has yet been made public in relation to the Whitechapel murderer, and the first real clue that has been obtained to his identity. The chain of evidence in our possession has been pieced together by two gentlemen connected with the business of private inquiries, who, starting on the track of the assassin without any pet "theory" to substantiate, and contenting themselves with ascertaining and connecting a series of the simplest facts, have succeeded in arriving at a result of the utmost importance. There are no suppositions or probabilities in the story we have to tell; we put forward nothing but simple facts, each substantiated by the evidence of credible witnesses. What they go to establish is that the perpetrator of the Berner street crime was seen and spoken to whilst in the company of his victim, within forty minutes of the commission of the crime and only passed from the sight of a witness
and within ten yards of the scene of the awful deed. We proceed to five hereunder the story of the two detectives, Messrs. Grand and J.H. Batchelor, of 283 Strand: When they began their quest, almost from the first place at which they sought evidence from No. 44 Berner street, the second house from the spot at which the body was found. This is the residence of a man named Mathew Packer, who carries on a small business as a greengrocer and fruiterer. His shop is an insignificant place, with a half window in front, and most of his dealings are carried on through the lower part of the window case, in which his fruit is exposed for sale. Mathew Packer had valuable information to give, and after two or three interviews on the subject, made and signed a statement in writing, the substance of which is as follows:
On the 29th ult., about 11.45 p.m., a man and woman came to his shop window, and asked for some fruit.
The man was middle aged, perhaps 35 years; about five feet seven inches in height; was stout, square built; wore a wideawake hat and dark clothes; had the appearance of a clerk; had a rough voice and a quick, sharp way of talking.
The woman was middle aged, wore a dark dress and jacket, and had a white flower in her bosom. It was a dark night and the only light was afforded by an oil lamp which Packer had burning inside his window, but he obtained a sufficiently clear view of the faces of the two people as they stood talking close in front of the window, and his attention was particularly caught by the white flower which the woman wore, and which showed out distinctly against the dark material of her jacket. The importance attached to this flower will be seen afterwards.
The man asked his companion whether she would have black or white grapes; she replied "black."
"Well, what's the price of the black grapes, old man?" he inquired.
"The black are sixpence and the white fourpence," replied Packer.
"Well then, old man, give us half a pound of the black," said the man. Packer served him with the grapes, which he handed to the woman. They then crossed the road and stood on the pavement almost directly opposite to the shop for a long time more than half an hour. It will be remembered that the night was very wet, and Packer naturally noticed the peculiarity of the couple's standing so long in the rain. He observed to his wife, "What fools those people are to be standing in the rain like that."
At last the couple moved from their position, and Packer saw them cross the road again and come over to the club, standing for a moment in front of it as though listening to the music inside. Then he lost sight of them. It was then ten or fifteen minutes past twelve o'clock, Packer, who was about to close his shop, noting the time by the fact that the public houses had been closed.
With a view of testing the accuracy and honesty of Packer's testimony, the detectives obtained an order to view the body of the woman murdered in Mitre square, and took Packer to see it, leaving him under the impression that they were taking him to see the Berner street victim. On seeing the body he at once declared that it was not the woman for whom the grapes had been bought, and not a bit like her.
The next evidence gleaned by the detectives was that of a Mrs. Rosenfield and her sister, Miss Eva Harstein, both residing at 14 Berner street. Mrs. Rosenfield deposes that early on Sunday morning she passed the spot on which the body had lain, and observed on the ground close by a grape stalk stained with blood. Miss Eva Harstein gave corroborative evidence as to the finding of the grape stalk close to where the body lay. She also stated that, after the removal of the body of the murdered woman she saw a few small petals of a white natural flower lying quite close to the spot where the body had rested.
It will be remembered by those who have read the accounts of the murder and the proceedings of the police subsequent to it, that the passage in which the crime had been committed was washed down by the police as soon as the body was removed. The detectives, reasoning that the grape stalk had probably been washed away with the blood and dirt removed by the police, next proceeded to search the sink down which the results of the police washing had been put, and amidst a heap of heterogeneous filth, discovered a grape stalk. It is a matter of common knowledge that some grapes were found in one hand of the murdered woman, so that the finding of this fragment of grape stalk, though important as binding the links of the evidence closer together, was scarcely necessary to establish the fact that the victim had been eating the fruit immediately before her death. There is one seeming discrepancy between the story of Packer and the facts as published; it has been reported that a red flower was found in the murdered woman's bosom, and Packer states that she wore a white flower. This is sufficiently easy of explanation since Packer does not say that the woman wore only a white flower, but that the attention was particularly drawn to the white flower from its standing out against the black of her dress, and the absence of the flower from her jacket when found by the police is unimportant in view of the evidence of Miss Harstein who subsequently saw fragments of it in the passage.
Last evening was far advanced when I walked into the greengrocer's little shop where the murdered woman was "treated" to some grapes, late on Saturday night, by the inhuman monster who shortly afterwards shed her blood with that revolting brutality peculiar to those now notorious murders. This shop is at No. 44 Berner street, and is kept by a quiet intelligent fruiterer named Matthew Packer, and his wife. They are both a little past the prime of life, and are known as respectable, hard working people. Their unpretending premises are situated just two doors from the scene of the murder, and the presumption of any mind of ordinary intelligence would be that it was the very first place at which the detectives and the police would have made their inquiries. They did nothing of the sort, as the man's simple, straightforward narrative will show.
"Now, Mr. Packer, I want you to tell me all that you know about the events of Saturday night last," I said as I took the seat he offered me.
"Well, that's soon told," was his answer.
"I had been out with my barrow most of the day, but hadn't done much business; and as the night came on wet I went home and took the place of the 'missus' in the shop here."
"Some time between half past eleven and twelve a man and woman came up Berner street from the direction of Ellen street, and stopped outside my window looking at the fruit. The man was about thirty to thirty five years of age, medium height, and with rather a dark complexion. He wore a black coat and a black, soft felt hat. He looked to me like a clerk or something of that sort. I am certain he wasn't what I should call a working man or anything like us folks that live around here."
"Did you notice the woman so that you would know her again?"
"Yes. I saw that she was dressed in dark clothes, looked a middle aged woman, and carried a white flower in her hand. I saw that as plain as anything could be, and I am sure I should know the woman again. I was taken today to the see the dead body of a woman lying in Golden land mortuary, but I can swear that wasn't the woman that stood at my shop window on Saturday night."
"Well, they hadn't stood there more than a minute when the man stepped a bit forward, and said, 'I say, old man, how do you sell your grapes.'"
"I answered, 'Sixpence a pound the black 'uns, sir, and fourpence a pound the white 'uns.'" Then he turned to the woman and said, 'Which will you have, my dear, black or white? You shall have whichever you like best.'"
"The woman said, 'Oh, then I'll have the black 'uns, 'cos they look the nicest.'"
"'Give us half a pound of the black ones, then,' said the man. I put the grapes in a paper bag and handed them to him."
"Did you observe anything peculiar about his voice or manner, as he spoke to you?"
"He spoke like an educated man, but he had a loud, sharp sort of voice, and a quick commanding way with him."
"But did he speak like an Englishman or more in this style?" I asked, imitating as well as I could the Yankee twang.
"Yes, now you mention it, there was a sound of that sort about it," was the instantaneous reply.
"And what became of them after that?"
"First of all, they stood near the gateway leading into the club for a minute or two, and then they crossed the road and stood right opposite."
"For how long?"
"More than half an hour, I should say; so long that I said to my missus, 'Why, them people must be a couple o' fools to stand out there in the rain eating grapes they bought here, when they might just as well have had shelter! In fact, sir, me and my missus left 'em standing there when we went to bed."
"And what time was that?"
"I couldn't say exactly, but it must have been past midnight a little bit, for the public houses was shut up."
"And that was positively the last you saw of them?"
"Yes. Standing opposite the yard where the murdered woman was found."
"Well, Mr. Packer, I suppose the police came at once to ask you and your wife what you knew about the affair, as soon as ever the body was discovered."
"The police? No. They haven't asked me a word about it yet!!! A young man in plain clothes came in here on Monday and asked if he might look at the yard at the back of our house, so as to see if anybody had climbed over. My missus lent him some steps. But he didn't put any questions to us about the man and the woman."
"I am afraid you don't quite understand my question, Mr. Packer. Do you actually mean to say that no detective or policeman came to inquire whether you had sold grapes to any one that night? Now, please be very careful in your answer, for this may prove a serious business for the London police."
"I've only got one answer," said the man "because it's the truth. except a gentleman who is a private detective. No detective or policeman has ever asked me a single question nor come near my shop to find out if I knew anything about the grapes the murdered woman had been eating before her throat was cut!!!"
This afternoon Matthew Packer, the fruiterer, of 44 Berner street, referred to in the above narrative, visited the mortuary of St. George's in the East, and identified the body of Elizabeth Stride as that of the woman for whom the grapes were purchased on the night of the murder.
In our next edition we shall give full details of this most important matter.
The Central News says: Passengers to the City from stations north and east of London were this morning greatly excited by the intelligence that "Jack the Ripper" had been captured. The story ran that at an early hour this morning a mounted patrol observed a suspicious looking character, and challenged him. The man immediately attacked him with a knife, slashing him in a dreadful manner but after a desperate struggle the constable succeeded in capturing him. A similar account was communicated to the police, but after telegraphing to all the stations in London, it was found that the story was an entire fabrication.
The rumour as to the arrest of the alleged murderer and the killing of a watchman no doubt originated in the same source as that which has been furnished by the Central News, namely, in the excited and panic stricken state of the public mind which nothing but the arrest of the murderer will calm. The immense services rendered by The Evening News today to the cause of justice, in placing before the authorities the information of we had exclusive knowledge, as regards the Berner street fruiterer, the selling of the grapes, and the identification of Lizzie Stride will, we do not doubt, be fully appreciated by our readers and, we may add, the London police.
At the City Mortuary, Golden lane, this morning, before Dr. Langham, the City Coroner, the inquest was opened on the body of the woman who was found murdered and horribly mutilated on Mitre square, Aldgate, at an early hour on Sunday morning. The deceased has been identified as an unmarried woman named Kate Eddowes, but she also passed by the names of Mrs. Conway and Mrs. Kelly.
The proceedings were watched on behalf of the authorities by Major Smith, Acting Commissioner of Police, Superintendent Forster, Detective Inspector McWilliams, and Mr. Crawford, the City solicitor.
The body of the Court was crowded.
Mr. Crawford: In this inquest I appear as the representative of the City for the purpose of rendering to you possible assistance, and if I consider it desirable to put any questions probably I shall have your permission.
The Coroner: By all means.
Eliza Gold, of No. 6 Thrall street, Spitalfields, widow. said: I recognise the deceased as my poor sister. Her name was Catherine Eddowes, and she had never been married. Her age would be about 43. She had been living with a man named Kelly for some years. I last saw her alive about four or five months ago. She got her living by hawking, and was a woman of sober habits. Before living with Kelly she had lived with a man named Conway for some years, and had four children by him. I cannot say whether Conway is still living. He was an army pensioner, and used to go out hawking. I cannot say whether they parted on good or bad terms, and I can't say whether she has been in the habit of seeing him since. I have no doubt whatever that the deceased is my sister.
Mr. Crawford: When did you last see Conway? - About seven or eight years ago.
Was she then on friendly terms with him? - I believe so. Did she live on friendly terms with Kelly? - I believe so.
When did you last see them together? - About a month or five weeks ago.
Did they then appear to be going on happily? - Quite.
Where did you see them? - At a common lodging house in Flower and Dean street.
And that was the last time you saw your sister? - Yes.
The Coroner: You said before that you had not seen your sister for four or five months, and now you say you saw her three or four weeks ago. Which is right? - I saw her about a month ago.
John Kelly said: I live at 55 Flower and Dean street, and am a labourer, jobbing about the markets. I have seen the body of the deceased, and recognise it as that of Catherine Conway. I have lived with her for the last seven years. She used to go about hawking in the streets. 55 Flower and Dean street is a common lodging house. I last saw her on Saturday afternoon, in Houndsditch. We parted there on very good terms. She said she was going to try and find a daughter in Bermondsey. I believe this was a daughter she had had by Conway. She promised me to be back not later than four o'clock, but she did not return. I heard afterwards that she had been locked up on the Saturday night. A woman who works in "the Lane" told me this, and said she had seen her being taken to the station. I made no inquiries, as I supposed she had been locked up for taking a drop of drink.
The Coroner: Have you ever known her to go out for an immoral purpose? - No, sir. I never knew her to do so.
Was she in the habit of drinking to excess? - No, only slightly.
Then she was occasionally? - Yes.
When you left her had she any money about her? - No, sir.
Why did she go to see her daughter? Did she want to get money from her? - Yes. I did not want to see her walking the streets all night.
What do you mean by "walking the street"? - Several times we have had to walk the streets all night together because we had not money to pay for our lodgings.
Were you without money at that time? - Yes.
Do you know of anyone with whom she was at variance or was likely to injure her? - No.
Do you know if she has seen Conway lately? - No. I have never seen him.
Do you know if he is living? - I cannot say.
Mr. Crawford: You say she had no money. Do you know with whom she had been drinking? - No.
Has she on any recent occasion absented herself? - No.
Saturday night was the first time for a long time? - Yes.
When did she last leave you? - Some months ago.
Why did she leave you? - We had a few words.
How long did she remain away? - Only a few hours.
Had you any angry conversation with her on Saturday? - No.
Do you know where her daughter lived? - She used to tell me that it was King street, Bermondsey.
When did she last ask her daughter for money? - A year ago.
How long have you been living in this lodging house? - Seven years.
On Friday night did you and deceased sleep together in this lodging house? - No.
Was she walking the streets? - No, she went into the casual ward in Mile End.
Did you sleep with deceased at the lodging house on any one night last week? - No.
Where did you sleep on Monday night? - I was hop picking in Kent, and deceased was with me on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. On Thursday night we both slept at Shoe lane Casual Ward.
The Coroner: Had you not earned any money? - No, sir.
Mr. Crawford: What time did you part on Friday? - About three or four in the afternoon. Why did you part? - She said she would go to Mile End Casual Ward, as we had not money for both our lodgings.
Have you heard that some tea and sugar were found upon her? - Yes.
Where did she get that from? - With some money which we got from pawning my boots.
When did you pawn them? - On Saturday morning, for 2s 6d.
When she left you was she sober? - Quite sober. We had a little drink, but I am positive she was sober.
During the last seven years do you know of anyone she has lived with beside yourself? - No.
You never knew her indulge in immoral practices? - Never.
She never brought money to you in the morning after being out all night? - Never, sir.
Mr. Crawford called attention to the fact that, according to the pawn ticket, the boots were pawned on the Friday.
Witness said he was so muddled that he could not say whether the pawning took place on Friday or Saturday. It was one of those days. His "missus" pawned the boots and he stood outside in his bare feet. A juryman said if the pawning took place on the Friday it rather upset the theory that the deceased had to go to the casual ward on the Friday night because they had not money for a lodging.
Frederick William Wilkinson, deputy at 55 Flower and Dean street, said he had known the deceased as Mrs. Kelly for the last seven or eight years. She and the last witness passed as man and wife, and they always appeared on very good terms. They have had words occasionally when she had had a little drink, but they were never violent. He believed deceased got her living by hawking and cleaning amongst the Jews. Kelly paid for his lodgings pretty regularly. Deceased was not in the habit of drinking to excess, but she was a very jolly woman. He did not think he had ever seen Kelly drunk in his life. Last week he saw her for the first time on the Friday when they came back from hopping. She went away and he saw her again between ten and eleven on Saturday morning, along with Kelly. He had never heard of deceased walking the streets for an immoral purpose. She generally came to the lodging house between 9 and 10 at night. He had never heard of her being intimate with any individual besides Kelly. She used to say that she had been married and that her proper name was Conway. He never knew her to be at variance with any one. When Kelly paid for his own bed on Saturday night witness asked him,
"Where's Kate?" and Kelly said, "I hear she is locked up." He then took a single bed. A single bed is fourpence and a double bed eightpence.
By Mr. Crawford: I should think Kelly and deceased had not slept together at 55 Flower and Dean street for the last four or five weeks. I believe deceased was wearing an apron when I saw her on Saturday morning.
Did any one come into your lodging house between one and two? - I only remember two detectives coming about three o'clock.
Did not a stranger take a bed about two o'clock? - I cannot recollect. I can tell from my books.
Mr. Crawford said he thought further examination of the witness ought to be postponed until the book was produced.
A Juryman (to witness) - Would you have trusted Kelly and deceased for their lodging on Friday night? - Certainly.
Police constable Edward Watkins (881) said: I was on duty at Mitre square on Saturday night. I have been in the City police for seventeen years. On Saturday night I went on duty at 9.45. My beat included Mitre square, and it took me about 12 or 14 minutes to cover the beat. I had continuously patrolled the beat from 10 on Saturday night until 1.44 o'clock on Sunday morning, and nothing had excited my attention. I passed through Mitre square at 1.30 on Sunday morning. I had my lamp fixed on my belt, and looked in the different corners, passages, and warehouses. At 1.30 nothing excited my attention, and I saw no one about. No one could have been in the square at that hour without my seeing them. I next went into Mitre square about 1.44, and entered it from the right from Mitre street. My attention was first attracted by the body of a woman, which was lying on its back. It was lying in the south west corner. The feet faced the square. The clothes were up above the waist. Her throat was cut, and her bowels were protruding. The stomach was ripped up. She was lying in a pool of blood. I did not touch the body, but ran across the road to Messrs. Kearley and Tonge's warehouse and pushed the yard door open, and called for the watchman, a man named Morris. He came out and I sent him for assistance. I remained beside the body until the arrival of Police constable Holland. He was followed by Dr. Sequeira. Inspector Collard arrived about two with Dr. Browne, the police surgeon. When I entered Mitre square, at 1.44, I did not hear any sound of footsteps, and to the best of my belief when I entered the square I was the only person in it except for the unfortunate woman.
Mr. Frederick William Foster, of 26 Old Jewry, said he had made the plans produced. The direct route from Mitre square to the lodging house, 55 Flower and Dean street, would be by Gouldstone street, and the distance could be walked within a quarter of an hour. It would also take about a quarter of an hour from Berner street to Mitre square. Mr. Crawford, in answer to one of the jurymen, said evidence would be given later on that a portion of the deceased's apron was found in Gouldstone street.
The deputy (Wilkinson) recalled, said: I have now got my lodging house book. It shows that on last Friday and Saturday nights Kelly slept in No. 52 bed. It does not show whether or not any one came in about two o'clock last Sunday morning. It would only show whether a bed was let at that time. There were six strange men sleeping in the house on Saturday night, but I cannot say whether any of them came in about two on Sunday morning. I cannot remember whether any stranger left the house about twelve on Saturday night. Nothing occurred to excite my suspicion.
By a Juryman: We never register the names of the lodgers, and we ask no questions. the house is closed about three in the morning.
Shortly before midnight, a story was circulating in Fleet street to the effect that the unknown murderer had been surprised in the act of attempting one of his now too familiar outrages on a female in Union street.
The woman, so the tale went, was lured by "the monster" into a side street, but the gleam of a steel blade at once roused her to a sense of the danger she was in, and her loud screams immediately brought to the spot a man and some two or three women, who were said to have been watching the movements of the couple. The would be murderer, on hearing the rapid pattering of approaching footsteps, at once took to his heels, followed down the street by his male pursuer who overtook him and knocked the knife which he held out of his hand.
The unknown one, however, darted into the road, jumped into a passing cab, and told the cabman, who seemed perplexed by the suddenness of the affair, to "drive wherever he liked." Off went the cab, followed by the howling crowd that had like magic swarmed into the street. The police joined in the pursuit, and the vehicle was speedily surrounded and stopped, and its occupant captured in gallant fashion and taken to the Leman street Police station. For a time this astounding rumour caused quite a stir. The news, however, seemed too good to be true, and inquiries made at Leman street soon established the fact that the report possessed only the barest substratum of truth. What really gave rise to the extraordinary narrative was this. Just after 10 o'clock a well dressed man rushed out of the Three Nuns public house in Aldgate, followed by a woman who, in a loud voice declared to the loungers and passers by outside that he had molested and threatened her. While he was thus being denounced to the crowd, the stranger hailed a cab, jumped in, and proceeded to drive off. A hue and cry was at once raised, and the vehicle was followed by an excited and hooting mob, which rapidly grew in numbers. It was the universal belief that the murderer who had been terrorising the East end was the occupant, and a hot pursuit was given. In a moment or two the cab was stopped, and a police constable got in, secured the man, and directed the cabman to drive to the Leman street police station. Here the prisoner was formally charged on suspicion. The cab was followed to the station by the girl who had raised the outcry. She stated to the police in the most emphatic manner that the prisoner had first accosted and molested her in the street, and that when she refused to accede to his proposals he threated physical violence. This occurred in the Whitechapel High street. While the woman was making her statement the prisoner was holding down his head and looking at the ground, and he never once attempted to make a denial; when, however, a man stepped forward to corroborate the girl's story, he looked up angrily and denied the truth of the allegations with considerable emphasis. The woman was then asked if she desired to make any charge, but declined to do so and shortly after left the station. It was, however, deemed prudent by the officer in charge to detain the man pending inquiries. He is an athletically built determined looking fellow, apparently about 40 years of age, with a dark moustache and clearly cut features. On his pockets being searched no weapons of any kind were found upon him. He gave his name but refused to state his address. When removed to the cell his attitude became impudent and defiant, and in the course of the conversation which he carried on with a slightly American accent while pacing up and down his place of confinement, the frequency with which he used the word "Boss" was particularly noticed. This, turning suddenly to one of the inspectors who happened to be int he cell at that moment, he suddenly exclaimed, "Look here, Boss, I don't care a God ___." It is probable that no special significance is to be attached to the use of language such as this, but the police point to the fact that the word "Boss," to judge by the now notorious letter sent by "Jack the Ripper" is a favourite expression with the miscreant who has so far eluded the sleuth hounds of Justice. The man is stated to have been slightly under the influence of drink when brought to the station. Throughout the night he maintained the attitude of defiance he had from the first assumed, and little or no information regarding his identity and the nature of his movements could be extracted from him. He remains in custody.
The officers who are making inquiries with respect to the discovery made at the new police offices at Westminster, have received information that on Saturday afternoon, at twenty minutes past five, a respectably dressed man, about 35 years of age, was seen to get over from the hoarding in Cannon road, and to walk quickly away, and that he was not followed or the police informed of the matter, because no importance was attached to the matter at the time. The police have forwarded a description of this man to all police stations, with the view, if possible, of tracing him out, besides which inquiries are being made for the purpose of ascertaining whether any person, on Saturday afternoon, after the workmen had left the building, was seen to get over the hoarding with any bundle or not, for, up to the present, no particulars can be obtained of any one having been seen to get over the hoarding.