Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files Read online

  But during this murder the killer is alleged to have targeted and removed a specific organ, the uterus and cut it out in almost total darkness. I cannot disagree with the doctor’s finding that the organ was removed with some precision. So could the killer have been a highly trained medical man or someone with anatomical knowledge? This theory is just one of a number of which have been looked at for over 125 years. If the killer was such a person then why would he mutilate the body? This would surely make his removal of any organs much more difficult if the motive for the murder was to obtain an organ. This would apply if the killer were taking an organ away as a trophy, as some serial killers have done in the past. Or was as there a much simpler explanation? At this point in time my investigation had thrown up more questions than answers and still I had no clues as to the identity of the killer.

  Following the murder of Annie Chapman local businessmen and residents alike were unhappy with the police handling of the murders and got together to form The Whitechapel Vigilance Committee.

  The committee was unhappy with the level of protection that the community was receiving from the police, so it introduced its own system of local patrols, using hand-picked unemployed men to patrol the streets of the East End every evening from midnight to between four and five the next morning. They operated in similar fashion to the police with each man having their own designated beat to patrol. Each of these men received a small wage from the committee. The men were armed with a police whistle, a pair of galoshes and a strong stick and wore noiseless shoes. The committee itself met each evening at nine in The Crown public house, and once the public house closed at 12.30 am the committee members would inspect and join the patrols. These patrols were shortly to be joined by those of the Working Men's Vigilance Committee. The chairman was George Lusk, who on October 10th 1888 received the much talked about “From Hell” letter, which contained half a human kidney, supposedly taken from a later victim and allegedly sent by Jack the Ripper. The letter was believed to have been a prank involving medical students who would have had access to kidney specimens quiet easily.

  Following the commission of the two murders which followed on September 30th, which I will discuss shortly, the committee members wrote to the government under Lord Salisbury in an attempt to persuade them to offer a reward for information leading to the apprehension of the killer. When the Home Secretary Henry Matthews refused, the committee offered its own reward. The committee also employed two private detectives, Mr. Le Grand (or Grand) and Mr. J. H. Batchelor, to investigate the murders without the involvement of the local police. Both of these persons I will discuss at length later.

  ELIZABETH STRIDE

  Elizabeth Stride a forty-five-year-old prostitute was the next victim and was the first victim of the so-called “double event”. Her body was found in Dutfield’s Yard, which adjoins the International Workers Club in Berner Street, at about 1.00am on the night of 30th September 1888, by a salesman returning with his pony and cart. She died from a single cut to her throat, which severed the carotid artery and she bled to death. This wound was believed to have been made by a small knife. There were no other wounds found on her body. Speculation at the time suggested that the killer was disturbed and many modern-day researchers also subscribe to that view.

  The crucial question in the Stride murder is: was she a victim of the Ripper or simply an unconnected victim? It would be foolhardy to dismiss any possibility lightly. After carefully assessing all the facts surrounding her murder, my conclusion was that Stride’s murder was not connected to any of either the previous or the later murders, and she was not a Ripper victim. In fact the police surgeon at the time also came to the same conclusion.

  The murder location was different from all the previous victims and would be different from all the victims that would follow. The time of the murder was different; the knife used was also different. As with the previous murders the killer disappeared into the night. A number of witnesses came forward and gave police vague descriptions of males who had apparently been seen with Stride prior to her death. However, none of these descriptions were the same. It also has to be noted that Stride was working as a prostitute and was desperate to earn money, so on that basis she would have no doubt accosted anyone and everyone who crossed her path, hence the varying conflicting descriptions.

  For far too long now researchers have placed too much importance to the descriptions of persons allegedly seen with Stride and also with Catherine Eddowes the next victim. To put these descriptions in the right perspective and to judge if they can be totally relied upon as being accurate we have to look at the current law regarding witness identification. The stated case I will refer to is R v. Turnbull 1976, from this case certain identification guidelines were then adopted. A pneumonic used to remember the various points is ADVOKATE:

  Amount of time under observation: How long did the witness have the person/incident in view?

  Distance: What was the distance between the witness and the person/incident?

  Visibility: What was the visibility at the time? Factors include time of day/night, street lighting, etc.

  Obstruction: Were there any obstructions to the view of the witness?

  Known or seen before: Did the witness know, or had the witness ever seen, the person before? If so where and when?

  Any reason to remember: Did the witness have any special reason for remembering the person/incident? Was there something specific that made the person/incident memorable?

  Time lapse: How long has elapsed since the witness saw the person/incident?

  Error or material discrepancy: Are there any errors or material discrepancies between descriptions in the first and subsequent accounts of the witness?

  I know these guidelines were adopted for use in connection with the identification of modern-day offenders and suspects however, they can still safely be applied to the various witnesses and the description they give from 1888. Taking all that into account I would reiterate that in any event the various witness descriptions are unsafe and should not be relied upon.

  No one was ever arrested in connection with her murder, although I would suggest her long-term boyfriend Michael Kidney must be a prime suspect, as it was documented that they had a torrid and often violent relationship. During the inquest there was conflicting evidence given by witnesses and by Michael Kidney himself, relating to when he stated he had last seen her alive. Despite this he was never arrested and interviewed by the police and her murder remained unsolved, but even today her murder is still regarded by some as having been committed by Jack the Ripper, despite overwhelming evidence to suggest otherwise.

  CATHERINE EDDOWES

  The second victim of the bloody night of September 30th, was Catherine Eddowes, known as Kate, a prostitute aged forty-six. At 1.44 am she was found brutally murdered by a police officer in the darkest corner of Mitre Square, an area of London policed by the City of London Police adjoining Whitechapel. Her face and her abdominal area had been subjected to extensive brutal mutilations. There was no doubt she had been the victim of the most frenzied attack to date.

  She was last seen alive at 1.00am when she was released from Bishopsgate Police Station having been arrested for being drunk earlier in the day. She was apparently seen by the police officer who released her, to turn left out of the doorway, which took her in the opposite direction of what would have been the fastest way back to Flower and Dean Street in Whitechapel, her home ground. However, this is contentious as the officer in the police station told her to close the door on her way out. Yet he was apparently able to see which direction she turned on leaving the station.

  According to that officer she was heading back toward Aldgate High Street where she had earlier been found drunk. On going down Houndsditch she would have passed the entrance to Duke Street, at the end of which was Church Passage, which led into Mitre Square. It is estimated that it would have taken less than ten minutes to reach Mitre Square from Bishopsgate Police Station. This leaves
a thirty minute gap from the time she leaves the police station to the time witnesses’ state a female vaguely matching her description is seen talking with a male outside of Mitre Square shortly before her lifeless and mutilated body was discovered by Pc Watkins.

  The inquest was opened on October 4th 1888 by Mr. S. F. Langham, coroner for the City of London. The first police witness was Pc Watkins who first discovered the body his testimony was:

  “I was on duty at Mitre-square on Saturday night. I have been in the force seventeen years. I went on duty at 9.45 upon my regular beat. That extends from Duke-street, Aldgate, through Heneage-lane, a portion of Bury-street, through Cree-lane, into Leadenhall-street, along eastward into Mitre-street, then into Mitre-square, round the square again into Mitre-street, then into King-street to St. James's-place, round the place, then into Duke-street, where I started from. That beat takes twelve or fourteen minutes. I had been patrolling the beat continually from ten o'clock at night until one o'clock on Sunday morning.”

  Coroner: Had anything excited your attention during those hours?

  Watkins: No.

  Coroner: Or any person?

  Watkins: No. I passed through Mitre-square at about 1.30 on the Sunday morning. I had my lantern alight and on - fixed to my belt. According to my usual practice, I looked at the different passages and corners.

  Coroner: At half past one did anything excite your attention?

  Watkins: No.

  Coroner: Did you see anyone about?

  Watkins: No.

  Coroner: Could any people have been about that portion of the square without your seeing them?

  Watkins: No. I next came into Mitre-square at 1.44, when I discovered the body lying on the right as I entered the square. The woman was on her back, with her feet towards the square. Her clothes were thrown up. I saw her throat was cut and the stomach ripped open. She was lying in a pool of blood. I did not touch the body. I ran across to Kearley and Long's warehouse. The door was ajar, and I pushed it open, and called on the watchman Morris, who was inside. He came out. I remained with the body until the arrival of Police-constable Holland. No one else was there before that but myself. Holland was followed by Dr. Sequeira. Inspector Collard arrived at about two o'clock, and also Dr. Brown, surgeon to the police force.

  Coroner: When you first saw the body did you hear any footsteps as if anybody were running away?

  Watkins: No. The door of the warehouse to which I went was ajar, because the watchman was working about. It was no unusual thing for the door to be ajar at that hour of the morning. I was continually patrolling my beat from ten o'clock up to half past one. I noticed nothing unusual up till 1.44, when I saw the body. I did not sound an alarm. We do not carry whistles. My beat is not a double but a single beat. No other policeman comes into Mitre-street.

  The second police witness was Police Constable Harvey whose beat bordered on Mitre Square he stated, “At 1.40 am I went down Duke Street and down Church Passage and into Mitre Square. I saw no one. I heard no cry or noise.”

  The next witnesses were the doctors who attended the murder scene and later carried out the post-mortem. The first doctor who attended the murder scene was Dr. Sequeira his testimony was:

  Dr. G. W. Sequeira, surgeon, of No. 34, Jewry-street, Aldgate, deposed: “On the morning of Sept. 30 I was called to Mitre-square, and I arrived at five minutes to two o'clock, being the first medical man on the scene of the murder. I saw the position of the body, and I entirely agree with the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown in that respect. I am well acquainted with the locality and the position of the lamps in the square. Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed. I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill.”

  Coroner: Can you account for the absence of noise?

  Dr. Sequeira: The death must have been instantaneous after the severance of the windpipe and the blood vessels.

  Coroner: Would you have expected the murderer to be bespattered with blood?

  Dr. Sequeira: Not necessarily.

  Coroner: How long do you believe life had been extinct when you arrived?

  Dr. Sequeira: Very few minutes - probably not more than a quarter of an hour .

  Dr. Brown attended the murder scene shortly after the arrival of Dr Sequeira. He examined the body at the scene and was responsible for carrying out the post-mortem later that day. His testimony was:

  “I arrived at Mitre Square around 2.00am. The body was on its back, the head turned to left shoulder. The arms by the side of the body as if they had fallen there. Both palms upwards, the fingers slightly bent. The left leg extended in a line with the body. The abdomen was exposed. Right leg bent at the thigh and knee. The throat cut across.

  “The intestines were drawn-out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder -- they were smeared over with some feculent matter. A piece of about two feet was quite detached from the body and placed between the body and the left arm, apparently by design. The lobe and auricle of the right ear were cut obliquely through.

  “There was a quantity of clotted blood on the pavement on the left side of the neck round the shoulder and upper part of arm, and fluid blood-coloured serum which had flowed under the neck to the right shoulder, the pavement sloping in that direction.

  “Body was quite warm. No death stiffening had taken place. She must have been dead most likely within the half hour. We looked for superficial bruises and saw none. No blood on the skin of the abdomen or secretion of any kind on the thighs. No spurting of blood on the bricks or pavement around. No marks of blood below the middle of the body. Several buttons were found in the clotted blood after the body was removed. There was no blood on the front of the clothes. There were no traces of recent connexion.

  “When the body arrived at Golden Lane, some of the blood was dispersed through the removal of the body to the mortuary. The clothes were taken off carefully from the body. A piece of deceased's ear dropped from the clothing. I made a post-mortem examination at half past two on Sunday afternoon. Rigor mortis was well marked; body not quite cold. Green discoloration over the abdomen.

  “After washing the left hand carefully, a bruise the size of a sixpence, recent and red, was discovered on the back of the left hand between the thumb and first finger. A few small bruises on right shin of older date. The hands and arms were bronzed. No bruises on the scalp, the back of the body, or the elbows.

  “The face was very much mutilated. There was a cut about a quarter of an inch through the lower left eyelid, dividing the structures completely through. The upper eyelid on that side, there was a scratch through the skin on the left upper eyelid, near to the angle of the nose. The right eyelid was cut through to about half an inch.

  “There was a deep cut over the bridge of the nose, extending from the left border of the nasal bone down near the angle of the jaw on the right side of the cheek. This cut went into the bone and divided all the structures of the cheek except the mucous membrane of the mouth.

  “The tip of the nose was quite detached by an oblique cut from the bottom of the nasal bone to where the wings of the nose join on to the face. A cut from this divided the upper lip and extended through the substance of the gum over the right upper lateral incisor tooth.

  “About half an inch from the top of the nose, was another oblique cut. There was a cut on the right angle of the mouth as if the cut of a point of a knife. The cut extended an inch and a half, parallel with the lower lip. There was on each side of cheek a cut which peeled up the skin, forming a triangular flap about an inch and a half. On the left cheek there were two abrasions of the epithelium under the left ear.

  “The throat was cut across to the extent of about six or seven inches. A superficial cut commenced about an inch and a half below the lobe below, and about two and a half inches behind the left ear, and extended across the throat t
o about three inches below the lobe of the right ear.

  “The big muscle across the throat was divided through on the left side. The large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed. The larynx was severed below the vocal chord. All the deep structures were severed to the bone, the knife marking intervertebral cartilages. The sheath of the vessels on the right side was just opened.

  “The carotid artery had a fine hole opening; the internal jugular vein was opened about an inch and a half -- not divided. The blood vessels contained clot. All these injuries were performed by a sharp instrument like a knife, and pointed.

  “The cause of death was haemorrhage from the left common carotid artery. The death was immediate and the mutilations were inflicted after death.

  “We examined the abdomen. The front walls were laid open from the breastbones to the pubes. The cut commenced opposite the ensiform cartilage. The incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the ensiform cartilage. The knife must have cut obliquely at the expense of that cartilage.

  “Behind this, the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument. Below this was another incision into the liver of about two and a half inches, and below this the left lobe of the liver was slit through by a vertical cut. Two cuts were shown by a jagging of the skin on the left side.

  “The abdominal walls were divided in the middle line to within a quarter of an inch of the navel. The cut then took a horizontal course for two inches and a half towards the right side. It then divided round the navel on the left side, and made a parallel incision to the former horizontal incision, leaving the navel on a tongue of skin. Attached to the navel was two and a half inches of the lower part of the rectus muscle on the left side of the abdomen. The incision then took an oblique direction to the right and was shelving. The incision went down the right side of the vagina and rectum for half an inch behind the rectum.