Largest Circulation of Any Evening Paper in the Kingdom.
LONDON. WEDNESDAY, 12 SEPTEMBER, 1888.
THE Pall Mall has not been especially friendly to The Star of late; but we congratulate it and Mr. Henry Norman, its Travelling Commissioner, on his interview with the Mikado. No English journalist has ever seen the Mikado before off the boards of the Savoy, and Mr. Norman's feat thereby beats the record. More power to him!
The Circulation of
on Monday reached
This is more by
Than the highest ever reached by any other Evening
Paper in London.
The circulation of THE STAR on Saturday
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER MYSTERY.
TEN PICTORIAL ILLUSTRATIONS
OF INCIDENTS OF THE CRIME
IN THIS WEEK'S
PENNY PICTORIAL NEWS.
PUBLISHED THIS DAY.
Offices: Red Lion-court, Fleet-street.
THE PIMLICO MYSTERY.
THE DOCTOR'S OPINIONS AS TO THE GHASTLY FIND IN THE THAMES.
Further Details of the Discovery with which "The Star" Startled London Last Night - Medical Opinion is Confident as to Foul Play.
As reported in our later editions last evening a discovery which apparently affords at least presumptive evidence of a murder and the dismemberment of the victim has been made in Pimlico. In the Thames, near the Grosvenor-road, and about opposite Ward's timber yard, a policeman's attention was yesterday attracted to something at which a number of boys were throwing stones. He examined the object of which the boys were making a target, and found that it was a human arm, with the hand attached. Considerably startled, the constable at once removed his ghastly find to the station, and it was inspected by Dr. Neville, the district police surgeon, whose establishment is in the Pimlico-road. He found the arm had been cut from the shoulder, and that the dismemberment had evidently been done by an unskilful person. There was a cord tied round the arm near the shoulder end, and this circumstance adds to the mysterious nature of the find. Anxious to get the doctor's opinion on this ghastly discovery, a Star reporter has
and the conversation which occurred was as follows: -
Were there any rings on the hand, doctor? - No, and no signs of rings having been worn that I could detect.
Was there anything to indicate whether the arm was that of a woman of refinement, or the reverse? - Well, I should say not a refined woman, for the nails were dirty.
That might be due to immersion in the dirty water of the river? - Certainly; but I also observed that the nails were not neatly trimmed, as a lady's generally are.
Can you say whether the woman was dark or fair? - Fair, because the hair of the arm was fair.
Bye-the-bye, I suppose there is no doubt that it is a woman's arm, and not a man's? - Oh, no; I think not. The contour of the arm, the shape of the hand, and the delicacy of the whole limb told me that it was a woman's.
A young woman's, or that of an elderly person? - No doubt that of a young
I should say, judging from the freshness of the skin and the tension of the muscles and sinews.
Now what is your idea about the cord? - It is difficult to say what the cord was tied round the arm for, unless it was to prevent blood from flowing from the limb while it was conveyed to the water. It was tied near the end of the arm, not far from the cut, and undoubtedly would have had the effect of keeping the blood from running down out of the hand.
Could the limb possibly have come from some dissecting room? - I do not think so for a moment. If it had there would have been on it some evidences of the dissection. The object of surgical dissection would, of course, be to see the development of the muscles and so on, but the way in which this limb has been severed, prevents anything of that sort being seen. Moreover, no dissecting-room authorities would allow of the removal of a limb.
Then this discovery could not be due to some medical student's freak? - I consider that explanation of the matter an impossible one. The limb must have been severed with a large sharp knife, whereas a dissecting knife is a small one.
Can you say whether the owner of the limb was alive or dead when it was severed from the shoulder? - It is difficult to say with certainty, of course, but my opinion is that the person must have been
when the arm was cut off.
By recently do you mean an hour or two? - Yes, or less than that.
I should like your reasons for that idea? - Well, the muscles were contracted, and the contraction, and retraction also, of the muscles would indicate that death had not occurred long before, rigor mortis not having set in.
Does the member give you an idea of what sort of woman it belonged to? - She would be a woman about 5ft. 8in. in height, stout, well built, well proportioned, and well nourished.
Then this is not an arm to be accounted for by a surgical amputation? No, it has not been removed skilfully enough. The dismemberment seems to have been done without any object except the removal of the arm from the shoulder, for what reason of course I cannot fathom. It certainly to me suggests murder. I cannot imagine in what other light to regard it. The muscles were clean cut through, so that the knife used must have been very sharp; and the bone was
And how long had the arm been separated from the body? - Not above two days, I should say.
The police declined to add in any way to our reporter's information.
We are informed, however, that the river in the immediate neighborhood was thoroughly dragged. The work was continued until a late hour last evening, but, according to the police, no more human remains were found. The police records of missing persons were also carefully searched, but they yielded nothing that could be described as a clue.
Information of the discovery has been forwarded to all the metropolitan police stations, and the Thames police will aid in the search for the other portions of the body.
Frederick Moore, of 86, Great Peter-street, Westminster, a deal porter employed at Ward's timber yard, states that it was he that first discovered the arm. With the assistance of a fellow workman he hoisted a ladder over the embankment on to the floating timber below, and thus reached the arm. He searched for other portions of the body in the water, but could not see anything else. Just above the place where the arm was found is a sluice coming out from the wall of the embankment, from which comes a stream of water from the distillery in Grosvenor-road. It is curious to note that two or three months ago this man Moore picked up the dead body of a child near the place where he found this arm.
The report of this occurrence was first published in the special edition of The Star last evening. It was appropriated - of course, without acknowledgement - by the Echo and some other of our contemporaries, who printed it in their extra special editions. We should not mention this were not this practice on the part of the Echo habitual.
Punch, which prints the enclosed lines to-day, follows The Star in believing that the police are thinking too much about the property of the rich and too little about the lives of the poor: -
[In the Norse Mythology, the Wolf Fenris (Crime) rages for food in the precincts of Asgard. Ultimately, the Sword-god Tyr loaded Fenris with the chain Gleipner, and thrust a sharp sword into his mouth, to prevent him biting more. Thus, says the legend, is Crime, which threatens to corrupt the human race, bound by the apparently slight fetters of Law, and as the power of the Wolf was broken by the Sword, that of Crime is kept under by the awards of Justice.]
Wanted a Gleipner! 'Tis very plain
That the Wolf's abroad and has slipped his chain;
For the ruthless red-fanged savage,
In square, in street, and in sordid slum,
Strikes Justice helpless, and terror dumb
With his cruel unchecked ravage.
Law and Order? The catchword slips
With ease complacent from canting lips.
The Law that Labor's last mite exacts,
The Order that silence for sorrow enacts,
These claim the world's solicitude;
For Property's timorous, Wealth would tread
In peace and quiet its wine-press red,
And Culture shrinks with a querulous dread
From violence and vicissitude;
But Law alert at the poor man's hest
And Order that giveth the humblest rest,
Are these high matters the soul to vex
Of Statesman Y Z, or Policeman X?
Could Tyr the Sword-god from Asgard come
To a West-end waste or an East-end slum,
Could he take a stroll when the night falls dark
Through Poverty's pleasuance or People's park,
What would the Norse god say? Why this -
"It is fearsomely clear that the Wolf Fenris,
As erst in Asgard olden,
Is 'waked by the moon and wants something to eat!'"
True the Law, in blue, is about on his beat,
But the echo far of his falling feet,
At the distant end of the dusky street,
The Wolf doth but embolden.
His jaws are wide, and his teeth are white,
His eye is watchful, his tread is light,
The keen curst creature, a hideous sight!
Alone, or hungrily herded.
His play is death, and his life is prey.
Nay, bold from custom he braves the day,
In the silent waste of the narrow way,
And snatches sudden whate'er may stray
Beyond reach of the weapon wherewith - they say -
Law's vigilant guard is girded.
The ancient custom of ringing the curfew-bell was resumed at Stratford-on-Avon last night.
A man applied to Mr. Saunders at Worship-street to-day on behalf of another man for a summons for wages.
Mr. Saunders: Why doesn't the man speak for himself?
Applicant: He can't; he is a Pole.
Mr. Saunders: Well, then, let him go to Poland,
The applicant was about to leave the box when the magistrate said he had better explain the matter. The man then said that the Pole's master - a Jewish tailor - had not paid his wages, and kept putting him off from week to week.
Mr. Saunders: The Pole has no business in this country. He is taking the bread out of the mouths of Englishmen. You may have a summons, but I hope you won't succeed.
In summing up the evidence given at an inquest last evening Coroner Troutbeck said this was one of a class of cases which were always difficult to deal with - where children had died from improper feeding, and this case was rendered more intricate by the fact that the child's life was insured. He thought everybody who had any experience of the insurance of children's lives was convinced that the system was an exceedingly bad one, and that when it did not lead to crime it often put perfectly innocent and respectable people under suspicion.
PISER RELEASED IN THE ABSENCE OF ALL EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM.
He is Very Candid to an Interviewer - A Pretty Theory of Blood Traces Turns Out a Mare's Nest - The Real Fact - A New Witness Volunteers a Statement.
John Piser was released last evening at eight o'clock, and was received by his friends and neighbors in Mulberry-street, with enthusiastic shouts of welcome. Some East-end Liberals to whom it now appears he is well known, and among whom he has been an active worker, have also called to sympathise with the family in the trouble apparently brought upon them by a police blunder, and also to congratulate John Piser on his release with unstained character. The detectives searched with unusual diligence, but could find positively nothing against him. And this is not surprising considering that he is not "Leather Apron," at least not the "Leather Apron" who has been the terror and blackmailer of the women of Whitechapel. John Piser, as the suspected "Leather Apron," was kept at Leman-street Police Station for 36 hours, but so far as we can learn he does not seem to have been done the justice of being confronted with any of the women who describe a man named "Leather Apron" as their terror, and who could immediately have put John Piser's identity to a conclusive test. We shall probably have some more to say about this.
A Press Association reporter interviewed Piser at 22, Mulberry-street, Whitechapel, this morning. He was released from Leman-street at half-past eight o'clock last evening. The ex-prisoner, in reply to questions put to him, said: - "Whatever particulars the world at large, the police authorities, and the public wish to know as to my whereabouts, and as to where I was staying when these atrocious and horrible crimes were committed I am quite willing to give. I came into this house at a quarter to eleven o'clock on Thursday night last. I knocked at the door. My sister opened it. She was rather surprised to see me, but it is usual at Jewish holiday times to pay visits to friends. My sister's young man was present. I shook hands with him. We had some conversation about work. My sister first went to bed and put the bolt in the latch. Anybody that goes out of the house after the door is latched cannot get in again. From Thursday night until I was arrested
except to go into the yard. I was several times seen going into the yard by a next door neighbor. On Monday morning last Sergeant Thicke came here. I opened the door. He said I was wanted, and I asked what for. He replied, 'You know what for. You will have to come with me.' I said, 'Very well, sir. I'll go down to the station with you with the greatest of pleasure.'" "Did he charge you?" asked the reporter, "or tell you what you were wanted for?" He said, "You know you are 'Leather Apron,' or words to that effect. Up to that moment I did not know that I was called by that name. I have been in the habit of wearing an apron. I have worn it coming from my employment, but not recently. I was quite surprised when Sergeant Thicke called me by
When I arrived at the police-station the police searched me, naturally I suppose, and in the usual way. They took everything from me, which I suppose is according to the customs and laws of the country. They found nothing in my possession that would incriminate me, thank God. I know of no crime, I have been connected with no crime, and my character will bear the strictest investigation, both by my co-religionists, and Gentiles whom I have worked for. I occasionally stayed at a lodging-house - chambers - but not in Dorset-street."
"Before you came to 22, Mulberry-street, on Thursday night, where had you been staying?"
"In the early part of last week I was at Holloway, and it was from Holloway that I came on Thursday. Last Sunday week I was accosted in Church-street by two females unknown to me. One asked me
(Presumably referring to the Buck's-row murder.) I said, 'God forbid, my good woman.' A stalwart man then came up and said, 'Come in, man, and treat me to half a pint." I went on. I was not the man who is said to have been seen in a publichouse on Saturday morning. I don't know Mrs. Fiddymont's public-house. I was totally ignorant of such a name as "Mrs. Sievey," until it was published, and don't know such a woman. Between eleven and twelve o'clock yesterday a man came to Leman-street Police-station. One of the authorities asked me if I had any objection to go out to see if I could be identified. I at once went into the station yard. There were several men there. One of them I know to be a boot finisher. He is a stout, stalwart man, of negro caste. He came towards me, and without saying a word he deliberately placed his hand on my shoulder. I promptly replied, "I don't know you; you are mistaken." His statement that he saw me threaten a woman in Hanbury-street is false, for I can prove, as I have already said, that I never left the place from Thursday night until the time I was arrested. The Star has published a portrait intended to represent me, but it has no more resemblance to me than it has to the man in the moon. I have been told that I shall be wanted at the inquest this afternoon. I am quite ready to go and to make a full statement as to my whereabouts. I shall see if I cannot legally proceed against those who have made statements about me. The charges made against me have quite broken my spirits, and I am afraid I shall have to place myself under medical treatment for some time."
Piser is a man of medium height, with florid complexion, and wears a moustache and side whiskers. For a man of his class he displays more than an ordinary amount of intelligence. He was perfectly at ease while making his statement, and more than once appealed to his brother, who was present, for confirmation of his story.
In this morning's papers there is a pretty story for the lovers of the sensational. We print it
and show how some of our contemporaries swallow statements without the least attempt to prove them. The story goes that a little girl happened to be walking in the back garden, or yard, of the house 25, Hanbury-street, the next house but one to the scene of the murder, when her attention was attracted to peculiar marks on the wall and on the garden path. The yard was carefully examined, with the result that a bloody trail was found distinctly marked for a distance of five or six feet in the direction of the back door of the house. The appearances, it is said, suggested that the murderer had passed through or over the dividing fence between Nos. 29 and 27, and thence into the garden of No. 25. On the wall of the last house was a curious mark, between a smear and a sprinkle, as if the murderer, alarmed by the bloodsoaked state of his coat, had taken it off, and knocked it against the wall. Abutting on the end of the yard at No. 25, are the works of Mr. Bailey, a packing-case maker. In the yard of this establishment, in an out-of-the-way corner, the police found some crumpled paper, stained, almost
On this a nice little theory is built up. The murderer is said to have intended to make his way into the street through the house next door but one, being frightened by some noise or light in No. 29 from retreating by the way which he came. On reaching the yard of No. 25, he made for the back door, and then suddenly remembering his bloodstained appearance, he stopped, and, catching sight of the pieces of paper lying about, he
to the end of the yard, and then performed his gruesome toilet.
A Star reporter called on Inspector Chandler this morning to know whether this startling story had any basis in fact. The inspector hadn't seen the statement, and when it was read to him he nearly laughed. And no wonder; the supposed bloodstains are only the discolorations on the mortar caused by urine! As for blood on the bricks, and the bloodstained paper, nothing of the kind had been found.
A woman named Durrell, who minds carts on market morning in Spitalfields Market, stated yesterday that, about half-past five o'clock on Saturday morning, she was passing the front door of No. 29, Hanbury-street, when she saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement. She heard the man say, "Will you?" and the woman replied, "Yes." They then disappeared. Mrs. Durrell does not think she could identify the couple.
has only been in existence about four weeks. It is largely composed of working men, assisted by some of the members belonging to Toynbee Hall, its operations being confined to that neighborhood. A member of the committee stated yesterday that rows are constantly occurring in the district, and that the police force is too small to deal with the disturbers of the peace. The night after the murder in Buck's-row, a man and woman disturbed Wentworth-street for more than half an hour. Two members of the committee were present, but no policeman could be found. Another brawl took place yesterday in the same thoroughfare, and one of the committee, who became aware of it, looked for a constable for twenty minutes before one was found.
A man has been arrested at Holloway on suspicion of being concerned in the Whitechapel murderer. He is believed to be insane.
The Exchange Telegraph Company learns that the police have full knowledge of the whereabouts of the man whose description has been circulated as that of the alleged Whitechapel murderer, and his identity is spoken to by several witnesses. Although not actually under arrest he is carefully watched, and his arrest is said to be only a question of time. The belief is steadily gaining ground that the man who was seen in a passage with a woman who is supposed to have been Mary Ann Nicholls on the morning of 8 Aug., and who spoke with a foreign accent, is the murderer of both Mary Ann Nicholls and Annie Chapman; and in the event of his arrest strong primÔ facie evidence will be forthcoming to connect him with the crimes. The police have keenly followed up the clue which was given them about this man.
"An Old Butcher" writes:- The supposition that the Whitechapel murderer is a butcher may be correct - very possibly so - but when Dr. Ralph Llewellyn says, "The throat was cut as a calf's or pig's is cut, with one hard blow from left to right," he is talking that which is sheer nonsense, and shows he doesn't know what he is talking about. A calf is drawn up by its hind legs, and then the butcher, holding its left ear with his left hand, thrusts the knife in the side of the neck just under the ear, drawing it carefully towards the windpipe, but not cutting it. A pig, on the contrary, is thrown on its side, a small cut is then made laterally just above the breastbone towards the neck, and the knife then thrust into the animal towards the lungs, cutting a main artery, when the blood rushes out. Neither animal is killed by "one hard blow from left to right," and neither is killed in the same way as this poor woman was killed - consequently, she could not have been killed as they are killed. Again, a butcher does not strike downward to disembowel, and he doesn't "rip a calf up." He makes a slight incision in the animal when skinned, or partially skinned, as it is hanging up, when he very carefully draws down the knife with his fingers inserted inside. I take it that a butcher would be a far better authority to tell whether done by a butcher than Dr. Llewellyn would. Any practical butcher who was shown the intestines would see at a glance.
His Imagination Fired by Hanbury-street.
A woman living in Whitechapel asked at Worship-street for protection against her husband, who had threatened to cut her heart out and burn it. - Mr. Saunders: But he would not do that. It would be no use to him. - Applicant: But he says he will. - Mr. Saunders: Well, I will send an officer to caution him.
Pleaded Hard for a Harsh Judgement.
Alexander Birke, Great Garden-chambers, Whitechapel, shoemaker, was charged at the Guildhall with stealing from an enclosure in front of 4, Mitre-street, Aldgate, an empty wooden case, the property of Messrs. Kearley and Tonge. Evidence was given by a person named Morris. The alderman said an old, empty champagne case was worthless, or nearly so; moreover, there was no actual proof that the accused took it. Witness: But the value of the thing has nothing to do with it. I have known a person convicted for stealing a turnip. Sir Andrew Lusk: Probably, but I never did convict for stealing a turnip, and I never will. - Witness: The prisoner has been convicted before. - Harris (the gaoler): I do not know him. - The Alderman: The man is not known. No proof has been given that he stole the box, and if he had the value is nothing. He has been in prison all night, and I now discharge him. - The decision was received with applause.
David Cohen, of Plummer's-row, Whitechapel, was summoned at Worship-street yesterday for pirating a drawing called "A Hebrew New Year's Paper," of which Bernard Dresdner was the registered proprietor. Dresdner, a publisher of Hebrew works, in Commercial-street, proved that on 6 Oct., 1886, he registered as an original work a drawing for a leaflet called "A Hebrew New Year's Paper." At the present time - approaching the Jewish New Year - he had discovered that pirated copies of his paper were being sold, and he issued cautions, one of which was left with the defendant. He found the defendant was selling copies, and he caused one to be purchased from him. The defendant, through an interpreter, said that the drawing claimed by the complainant was copied from others, principally German prints, and from old prayer books, and he called Philip Valentine, a publisher of Hebrew works, of Houndsditch and other places, who pointed out various parts of the drawing, such as Moses with the tables, and the "priestly hands," as being copies of German works. Mr. Bushby said that that would be no answer or interfere with the registration. A lad apprenticed to a draughtsman in Little Britain, City, said the defendant had brought the drawing identified by the complainant as one of those registered by him and ordered it to be copied, and he had copied it. Mr. Bushby adjourned the case.
The Non-Detection of Crime.
SIR, - Your remarks on the ignorance of the police of the metropolis of the haunts of criminals are perfectly just. Further, this ignorance is virtually encouraged. It is well known that the common lodging-houses are the haunts of the lowest and vilest criminals, and of their abandoned female associates. Nests of thieves and prostitutes in most cases. The office of the lodging-house inspector is sanitary, not detective, nor repressive. Further, he can enter only at certain times, even for the enforcement of sanitary regulations, requisite air space, &c., without special permission. It is thus possible for many more persons to occupy the house than are allowed by the licence. Single men, single women, and "doubles" may occupy one house by permission of the Commissioner of Police, and the whole moral atmosphere is foul in the extreme. Casual laborers become tramps and beggars, and then thieves; and the women who, in their destitution, enter these portals, usually "leave hope behind." But unless in hot pursuit of a criminal the ordinary policeman may not enter, nor may the detective without warrant if the keeper objects. The slaughter ground of the East-end abounds with lodging houses, each victim of the last six months being an inhabitant of one or other, and their murderer is probably at this moment sheltered in the Alsatia of the East. The police of Whitechapel and Spitalfields are practically powerless to deal with the ruffianly population crowded into long, narrow streets, where nine out of 10 men are the policemen's natural enemies. - Yours, &c.,
WELL-WISHER. - The figure in The Star emblem is an attempt to represent our mission in warring against London abuses.
LONDON MURDERS. - E. S. Hunt suggests that the special constables who volunteered to obstruct public meetings should come forward to help to detect crime.
A retired police officer of superior rank points out the grave difference in the management of the Metropolitan Police as compared with the management of the police of important provincial towns, such as Manchester, Birmingham, and Liverpool. In these towns as in the metropolis, the police are divided into divisions, each of which has its head in the person of a superintendent, who controls his division subject only to the authority of his chief constable. He is responsible not only for the discipline of his men, but also for the good order of his district, and to effect this he is required to make a systematic visitation of all portions of his district and the whole of his men, not only in the daytime, but also at night. He thus rouses up those drones in the police hive who day after day saunter round their beats with their official eyes closed. Such superintendents are active members of an important public body, not ornamental figureheads as in London, whose whole duty consists in sitting in a snug office. Complaints of inefficiency will be rife until this is altered.