The second victim of the bloody night of 30 September was Catherine Eddowes, known as Kate, a prostitute aged 46. At 1.45am she was found brutally murdered in a dark corner of Mitre Square, which borders Whitechapel but falls under the control of the City of London Police.
Mitre Square is about 12 minutes’ walk from Berner Street, the scene of Elizabeth Stride’s murder, and Eddowes’s body was found approximately 45 minutes after Stride’s. The square could be entered by three passageways: from the east by Church Passage, from the west from Mitre Street or from the north by St James’s Passage. At about 1.40am Police Constable Harvey passed along Church Passage and looked into Mitre Square, but he did not enter. Had he done so, he surely would have stumbled across the murderer. Four minutes later PC Watkins entered the square from Mitre Street and came across the body of Kate Eddowes lying on the pavement in the south-west corner. Yet neither Watkins nor Harvey reported seeing a man pass him or leaving the square hurriedly around the time of the murder. Therefore, presumably, the only route the killer could have taken was the northern passage, leading towards the City.
Eddowes was last seen alive at 1.35am in the company of a man described as aged 30, five feet seven inches tall, of medium build and with a fair complexion and moustache. He wore a pepper-and-salt-coloured jacket which fitted loosely, a grey cloth cap with a peak of the same colour and a reddish handkerchief knotted around his neck. He had the appearance of being a sailor.
Eddowes’s head, like that of Polly Nichols, had been almost severed. Her body was gashed open from breastbone to stomach and her intestines had been cut out and placed over her right shoulder. The post-mortem showed that her kidney and uterus had been removed. Her face had been brutally mutilated. Was this savagery the Ripper compensating himself for having been interrupted in Berner Street, as some experts suggest?
Dr Frederick Gordon Brown, the London police surgeon called to the murder, arrived at Mitre Square around 2am. I have included his report as it reveals important findings that he did not give in his inquest testimony.
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. There was a 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 to 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 cord. 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 or 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 breastbone to the pubes. The cut commenced opposite the enciform cartilage. The incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the enciform 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. A jagging of the skin on the left side showed two cuts.
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.
There was a stab of about an inch on the left groin. This was done by a pointed instrument. Below this was a cut of three inches going through all tissues making a wound of the peritoneum about the same extent.
An inch below the crease of the thigh was a cut extending from the anterior spine of the ilium obliquely down the inner side of the left thigh and separating the left labium, forming a flap of skin up to the groin. The left rectus muscle was not detached.
There was a flap of skin formed by the right thigh, attaching the right labium, and extending up to the spine of the ilium. The muscles on the right side inserted into the frontal ligaments were cut through.
The skin was retracted through the whole of the cut through the abdomen, but the vessels were not clotted. Nor had there been any appreciable bleeding from the vessels. I draw the conclusion that the act was made after death, and there would not have been much blood on the murderer. The cut was made by someone on the right side of the body, kneeling below the middle of the body.
I removed the content of the stomach and placed it in a jar for further examination. There seemed very little in it in the way of food or fluid, but from the cut end partly digested farinaceous food escaped.
The intestines had been detached to a large extent from the mesentery. About two feet of the colon was cut away. The sigmoid flexure was invaginated into the rectum very tightly.
Right kidney was pale, bloodless with slight congestion of the base of the pyramids.
There was a cut from the upper part of the slit on the under surface of the liver to the left side, and another cut at right angles to this, which were about an inch and a half deep and two and a half inches long. Liver itself was healthy.
The gall bladder contained bile. The pancreas was cut, but not through, on the left side of the spinal column. Three and a half inches of the lower border of the spleen by half an inch was attached only to the peritoneum.
The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed. The left renal artery was cut through. I would say that someone who knew the position of the kidney must have done it.
The lining membrane over the uterus was cut through. The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump of three quarters of an inch. The rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments. The vagina and cervix of the womb was uninjured.
The bladder was healthy and uninjured, and contained three or four ounces of water. There was a tongue-like cut through the anterior wall of the abdominal aorta. The other organs were healthy. There were no indications of connexion.
I believe the wound in the throat was first inflicted. I believe she must have been lying on the ground.
The wounds on the face and abdomen prove that they were inflicted by a sharp, pointed knife, and that in the abdomen by one six inches or longer.
I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed.
I think the perpetrator of this act had sufficient time, or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids. It would take at least five minutes.
I cannot assign any reason for the parts being taken away. I feel sure that there was no struggle, and believe it was the act of one person.
The throat had been so instantly severed that no noise could have been emitted. I should not expect much blood to have been found on the person who had inflicted these wounds. The wounds could not have been self-inflicted.
My attention was called to the apron, particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin. I have seen the portion of an apron produced by Dr Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It is impossible to say that it is human blood on the apron. I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it (which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have), the seams of the borders of the two actually correspond. Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street.
The inquest into the death of Catherine Eddowes (or Conway or Kelly) was presided over by Mr S. F. Langham, Coroner for the City of London.
Day One: Thursday, 4 October 1888
Mr Crawford, City solicitor, appeared on behalf of the Corporation [of London], as responsible for the police …
Crawford: I appear here as representing the City police in this matter, for the purpose of rendering you every possible assistance, and if I should consider it desirable, in the course of the inquiry, to put any questions to witnesses, probably I shall have your permission when you have finished with them.
Coroner: Oh, certainly. …
Eliza Gold: I live at 6, Thrawl Street, Spitalfields. I have been married, but my husband is dead. I recognise the deceased as my poor sister (witness here commenced to weep very much, and for a few moments she was unable to proceed with her story). Her name was Catherine Eddowes. I cannot exactly tell where she was living. She was staying with a gentleman, but she was not married to him. Her age last birthday was about 43 years, as far as I can remember. She has been living for some years with Mr Kelly. He is in court. I last saw her alive about four or five months ago. She used to go out hawking for a living, and was a woman of sober habits. Before she went to live with Kelly, she had lived with a man named Conway for several years, and had two children by him. I cannot tell how many years she lived with Conway. I do not know whether Conway is still living. He was a pensioner from the army, and used to go out hawking also. I do not know on what terms he parted from my sister. I do not know whether she had ever seen him from the time they parted. I am quite certain that the body I have seen is my sister. …
Coroner: Was she living on friendly terms with Kelly?
Gold: I cannot say. Three or four weeks ago I saw them together, and they were then on happy terms. I cannot fix the time when I last saw them. They were living at 55, Flower and Dean Street, a lodging-house. My sister when staying there came to see me when I was very ill. From that time, until I saw her in the mortuary, I have not seen her. …
John Kelly (labourer): I live at a lodging-house, 55, Flower and Dean Street. Have seen the deceased and recognise her as Catherine Conway. I have been living with her for seven years. She hawked a few things about the streets and lived with me at a common lodging-house in Flower and Dean Street. The lodging-house is known as Cooney’s. I last saw her alive about two o’clock in the afternoon of Saturday in Houndsditch. We parted on very good terms. She told me she was going over to Bermondsey to try and find her daughter Annie. Those were the last words she spoke to me. Annie was a daughter whom I believe she had had by Conway. She promised me before we parted that she would be back by four o’clock, and no later. She did not return.
Coroner: Did you make any inquiry after her?
Kelly: I heard she had been locked up at Bishopsgate Street on Saturday afternoon. An old woman who works in the lane told me she saw her in the hands of the police.
Coroner: Did you make any inquiry into the truth of this?
Kelly: I made no further inquiries. I knew that she would be out on Sunday morning, being in the City.
Coroner: Did you know why she was locked up?
Kelly: Yes, for drink; she had had a drop of drink, so I was told. I never knew she went out for any immoral purpose. She occasionally drank, but not to excess. When I left her she had no money about her. …
Frederick William Wilkinson: I am deputy of the lodging-house at Flower and Dean Street. I have known the deceased and Kelly during the last seven years. They passed as man and wife, and lived on very good terms. They had a quarrel now and then, but not violent. They sometimes had a few words when Kate was in drink, but they were not serious. I believe she got her living by hawking about the streets and cleaning amongst the Jews in Whitechapel. Kelly paid me pretty regularly. Kate was not often in drink. She was a very jolly woman, always singing. Kelly was not in the habit of drinking, and I never saw him the worse for drink. …
Coroner: Did you know she was in the habit of walking the streets at night?
Wilkinson: No; she generally used to return between nine and ten o’clock. I never knew her to be intimate with any particular individual except Kelly; and never heard of such a thing. …
Constable Edward Watkins (City of London Police): I was on duty at Mitre Square on Saturday night. I have been in the force seventeen years. I went on duty at 9.45pm 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 1.30am 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 1.40am, 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 [Tonge’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 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.
[Replying to questioning by Crawford]: I was continually patrolling my beat from ten o’clock up to half-past one. I noticed nothing unusual up till 1.44am, when I saw the body. …
Frederick William Foster, of 26, Old Jewry, architect and surveyor, produced a plan, which he had made of the place where the body was found, and the district. From Berner Street to Mitre Street is three-quarters of a mile, and a man could walk the distance in twelve minutes.
Inspector Collard (City Police): At five minutes before two o’clock on Sunday morning last I received information at Bishopsgate Street Police Station that a woman had been murdered in Mitre Square. Information was at once telegraphed to headquarters. I dispatched a constable to Dr Gordon Brown, informing him, and proceeded myself to Mitre Square, arriving there about two or three minutes past two. I there found Dr Sequeira, two or three police officers, and the deceased person lying in the southwest corner of the square, in the position described by Constable Watkins. The body was not touched until the arrival shortly afterwards of Dr Brown. The medical gentlemen examined the body, and in my presence Sergeant Jones picked up from the foot way by the left side of the deceased three small black buttons, such as are generally used for boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, and a small penny mustard tin containing two pawn-tickets. They were handed to me. The doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance, and saw the body placed in the conveyance. It was then taken to the mortuary, and stripped by Mr Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself. I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut.
Coroner: Was there any money about her?
Inspector Collard: No; no money whatever was found. A piece of cloth was found in Goulston Street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased. When I got to the square I took immediate steps to have the neighbourhood searched for the person who committed the murder. Mr McWilliams, chief of the Detective Department, on arriving shortly afterwards sent men to search in all directions in Spitalfields, both in streets and lodging-houses. Several men were stopped and searched in the streets, without any good result. I have had a house-to-house inquiry made in the vicinity of Mitre Square as to any noises or whether persons were seen in the place; but I have not been able to find any beyond the witnesses who saw a man and woman talking together.
Coroner: When you arrived was the deceased in a pool of blood?
Inspector Collard: The head, neck, and, I imagine, the shoulders were lying in a pool of blood when she was first found, but there was no blood in front. I did not touch the body myself, but the doctor said it was warm.
Coroner: Was there any sign of a struggle having taken place?
Inspector Collard: None whatever. I made a careful inspection of the ground all round. There was no trace whatever of any struggle. There was nothing in the appearance of the woman, or of the clothes, to lead to the idea that there had been any struggle. From the fact that the blood was in a liquid state I conjectured that the murder had not been long previously committed. In my opinion the body had not been there more than a quarter of an hour. I endeavoured to trace footsteps, but could find no trace whatever. The backs of the empty houses adjoining were searched, but nothing was found.
Dr Frederick Gordon Brown: I am surgeon to the City of London Police. I was called shortly after two o’clock on Sunday morning, and reached the place of the murder about twenty minutes past two. My attention was directed to the body of the deceased. It was lying in the position described by Watkins, on its back, the head turned to the left shoulder, the arms by the side of the body, as if they had fallen there. Both palms were upwards, the fingers slightly bent. A thimble was lying near. The clothes were thrown up. The bonnet was at the back of the head. There was great disfigurement of the face. The throat was cut across. Below the cut was a neckerchief. The upper part of the dress had been torn open. The body had been mutilated, and was quite warm – no rigor mortis. The crime must have been committed within half an hour, or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body. There were no stains of blood on the bricks or pavement around. …
Before we removed the body Dr Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds, he having been engaged in a case of a similar kind previously. He saw the body at the mortuary. The clothes were removed from the deceased carefully. I made a post-mortem examination on Sunday afternoon. There was a bruise on the back of the left hand, and one on the right shin, but this had nothing to do with the crime. There were no bruises on the elbows or the back of the head. The face was very much mutilated, the eyelids, the nose, the jaw, the cheeks, the lips, and the mouth all bore cuts. There were abrasions under the left ear. The throat was cut across to the extent of six or seven inches.
Coroner: Can you tell us what was the cause of death?
Dr Brown: The cause of death was haemorrhage from the throat. Death must have been immediate.
Coroner: There were other wounds on the lower part of the body?
Dr Brown: Yes; deep wounds, which were inflicted after death.
(Witness here described in detail the terrible mutilation of the deceased’s body.)
Crawford: I understand that you found certain portions of the body removed?
Dr Brown: Yes. The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out. Both these organs were absent, and have not been found.
Coroner: Have you any opinion as to what position the woman was in when the wounds were inflicted?
Dr Brown: In my opinion the woman must have been lying down. The way in which the kidney was cut out showed that it was done by somebody who knew what he was about.
Coroner: Does the nature of the wounds lead you to any conclusion as to the instrument that was used?
Dr Brown: It must have been a sharp-pointed knife, and I should say at least 6 inches long.
Coroner: Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill?
Dr Brown: He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.
Coroner: Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes?
Dr Brown: None whatever.
Coroner: Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge?
Dr Brown: It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.
Coroner: Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by someone accustomed to cutting up animals?
Dr Brown: Yes.
Coroner: Have you been able to form any opinion as to whether the perpetrator of this act was disturbed?
Dr Brown: I think he had sufficient time, but it was in all probability done in a hurry.
Coroner: How long would it take to make the wounds?
Dr Brown: It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.
Coroner: Can you, as a professional man, ascribe any reason for the taking away of the parts you have mentioned?
Dr Brown: I cannot give any reason whatever.
Coroner: Have you any doubt in your own mind whether there was a struggle?
Dr Brown: I feel sure there was no struggle. I see no reason to doubt that it was the work of one man.
Coroner: Would any noise be heard, do you think?
Dr Brown: I presume the throat was instantly severed, in which case there would not be time to emit any sound.
Coroner: Does it surprise you that no sound was heard?
Dr Brown: No.
Coroner: Would you expect to find much blood on the person inflicting these wounds?
Dr Brown: No, I should not. I would say that the abdominal wounds were inflicted by a person kneeling at the right side of the body. The wounds could not possibly have been self-inflicted.
Coroner: Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston Street?
Dr Brown: Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.
Coroner: Have you formed any opinion as to the motive for the mutilation of the face?
Dr Brown: It was to disfigure the corpse, I should imagine.
A juror: Was there any evidence of a drug having been used?
Dr Brown: I have not examined the stomach as to that. The contents of the stomach have been preserved for analysis. …
Day Two: Thursday, 11 October 1888
… Dr G.W. Sequeira (surgeon, of No. 34, Jewry Street, Aldgate): On the morning of Sept. 30th 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.
[Replying to questioning by Crawford]: 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.
William Sedgwick Saunders (medical officer of health for the City): I received the stomach of the deceased from Dr Gordon Brown, carefully sealed, and I made an analysis of the contents, which had not been interfered with in any way. I looked more particularly for poisons of the narcotic class, but with negative results, there being not the faintest trace of any of those or any other poisons. …
Crawford: The theory has been put forward that it was possible for the deceased to have been murdered elsewhere, and her body brought to where it was found. I should like to ask Dr Gordon Brown, who is present, what his opinion is about that.
Dr Brown: I do not think there is any foundation for such a theory. The blood on the left side was clotted, and must have fallen at the time the throat was cut. I do not think that the deceased moved the least bit after that.
Coroner: The body could not have been carried to where it was found?
Dr Brown: Oh, no.
Constable Lewis Robinson: At half-past eight, on the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, while on duty in High Street, Aldgate, I saw a crowd of persons outside No. 29, surrounding a woman whom I have since recognised as the deceased.
Coroner: What state was she in?
Constable Robinson: Drunk.
Coroner: Lying on the footway?
Constable Robinson: Yes. I asked the crowd if any of them knew her or where she lived, but got no answer. I then picked her up and sat her against the shutters, but she fell down sideways. With the aid of a fellow-constable I took her to Bishopsgate Police Station. There she was asked her name, and she replied ‘Nothing.’ She was then put into a cell. …
George James Morris (night watchman at Messrs. Kearley and Tonge’s tea warehouse, Mitre Square): On Saturday, Sept. 29, I went on duty at seven o’clock in the evening. I occupied most of my time in cleaning the offices and looking about the warehouse.
Coroner: What happened about a quarter to two in the morning?
Morris: Constable Watkins, who was on the Mitre Square beat, knocked at my door, which was slightly ajar at the time. I was then sweeping the steps down towards the door. The door was pushed when I was about two yards off. I turned round and opened the door wide. The constable said, ‘For God’s sake, mate, come to my assistance.’ I said, ‘Stop till I get my lamp. What is the matter?’ ‘Oh, dear,’ he exclaimed, ‘here is another woman cut to pieces.’ I asked where, and he replied, ‘In the corner.’ I went into the corner of the square and turned my light on the body. I agree with the previous witnesses as to the position of the body. I ran up Mitre Street into Aldgate, blowing my whistle all the while.
Coroner: Did you see any suspicious persons about?
Morris: No. Two constables came up and asked what was the matter. I told them to go down to Mitre Square, as there was another terrible murder. They went, and I followed and took charge of my own premises again. …
Constable James Harvey (City of London Police): On the night of Saturday, Sept. 29th, I was on duty in the neighbourhood of Houndsditch, and Aldgate. I was there at the time of the murder, but did not see any one nor hear any cry. When I got into Aldgate, returning towards Duke Street, I heard a whistle and saw the witness Morris with a lamp. I asked him what was the matter, and he told me that a woman had been ripped up in Mitre Square. Together with Constable Hollins I went to Mitre Square, where Watkins was by the side of the body of the deceased. Hollins went for Dr Sequeira, and a private individual was despatched for other constables, who arrived almost immediately, having heard the whistle. I waited with Watkins, and information was sent to the inspector. …
Joseph Lawende: I reside at No. 45, Norfolk Road, Dalston, and am a commercial traveller. On the night of Sept. 29th, I was at the Imperial Club, Duke Street, together with Mr Joseph Levy and Mr Harry Harris. It was raining, and we sat in the club till half-past one o’clock, when we left. I observed a man and woman together at the corner of Church Passage, Duke Street, leading to Mitre Square.
Coroner: Were they talking?
Lawende: The woman was standing with her face towards the man, and I only saw her back. She had one hand on his breast. He was the taller. She had on a black jacket and bonnet. I have seen the articles at the police station, and believe them to be those the deceased was wearing.
Coroner: What sort of man was this?
Lawende: He had on a cloth cap with a peak of the same. …
Crawford: You have given a description of the man to the police?
Lawende: Yes.
Coroner: Would you know him again?
Lawende: I doubt it. The man and woman were about nine or ten feet away from me. I have no doubt it was half-past one o’clock when we rose to leave the club, so that it would be twenty-five minutes to two o’clock when we passed the man and woman.
Coroner: Did you overhear anything that either said?
Lawende: No.
Coroner: Did either appear in an angry mood?
Lawende: No.
Coroner: Did anything about their movements attract your attention?
Lawende: No. The man looked rather rough and shabby.
Coroner: When the woman placed her hand on the man’s breast, did she do it as if to push him away?
Lawende: No; it was done very quietly.
Coroner: You were not curious enough to look back and see where they went?
Lawende: No. …
Constable Alfred Long (Metropolitan Police): I was on duty in Goulston Street, Whitechapel, on Sunday morning, September 30th and about five minutes to three o’clock I found a portion of a white apron (produced). There were recent stains of blood on it. The apron was lying in the passage leading to the staircase of Nos. 106 to 119, a model dwelling house. Above on the wall was written in chalk, ‘The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.’ I at once searched the staircase and areas of the building, but did not find anything else. I took the apron to Commercial Road Police station and reported to the inspector on duty.
Coroner: Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron?
Constable Long: I passed about twenty minutes past two o’clock.
Coroner: Are you able to say whether the apron was there then?
Constable Long: It was not.
Crawford: As to the writing on the wall, have you not put a ‘not’ in the wrong place? Were not the words, ‘The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing’?
Constable Long: I believe the words were as I have stated.
Coroner: Was not the word ‘Jews’ spelt ‘Juwes’?
Constable Long: It may have been.
Coroner: Yet you did not tell us that in the first place. Did you make an entry of the words at the time?
Constable Long: Yes, in my pocket book.
Coroner: Is it possible that you have put the ‘not’ in the wrong place?
Constable Long: It is possible, but I do not think that I have.
Coroner: Which did you notice first – the piece of apron or the writing on the wall?
Constable Long: The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.
Coroner: How came you to observe the writing on the wall?
Constable Long: I saw it while trying to discover whether there were any marks of blood about.
Coroner: Did the writing appear to have been recently done?
Constable Long: I could not form an opinion.
Coroner: Do I understand that you made a search in the model dwelling house?
Constable Long: I went into the staircases.
Coroner: Did you not make inquiries in the house itself?
Constable Long: No.
Foreman of the jury: Where is the pocket book in which you made the entry of the writing?
Constable Long: At Westminster.
Coroner: Is it possible to get it at once?
Constable Long: I dare say.
Crawford: I will ask the coroner to direct that the book be fetched.
Coroner: Let that be done.
Detective Constable Daniel Halse (City of London Police): On Saturday, Sept. 29, pursuant to instructions received at the central office in Old Jewry, I directed a number of police in plain clothes to patrol the streets of the City all night. At two minutes to two o’clock on the Sunday morning, when near Aldgate Church, in company with Detectives Outram and Marriott, I heard that a woman had been found murdered in Mitre Square. We ran to the spot, and I at once gave instructions for the neighbourhood to be searched and every man stopped and examined. I myself went by way of Middlesex Street into Wentworth Street, where I stopped two men, who, however, gave a satisfactory account of themselves. I came through Goulston Street about twenty minutes past two, and then returned to Mitre Square, subsequently going to the mortuary. I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing. I accompanied Major Smith back to Mitre Square, when we heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston Street. After visiting Leman Street police station, I proceeded to Goulston Street, where I saw some chalk writing on the black facia of the wall. Instructions were given to have the writing photographed, but before it could be done the Metropolitan police stated that they thought the writing might cause a riot or outbreak against the Jews, and it was decided to have it rubbed out, as the people were already bringing out their stalls into the street. When Detective Hunt returned inquiry was made at every door of every tenement of the model dwelling house, but we gained no tidings of anyone who was likely to have been the murderer.
[Replying to questioning by Crawford]: At twenty minutes past two o’clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron.
Coroner: As to the writing on the wall, did you hear anybody suggest that the word ‘Jews’ should be rubbed out and the other words left?
Detective Constable Halse: I did. The fear on the part of the Metropolitan police that the writing might cause A riot was the sole reason why it was rubbed out. I took a copy of it, and what I wrote down was as follows: ‘The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing.’
Coroner: Did the writing have the appearance of having been recently done?
Detective Constable Halse: Yes. It was written with white chalk on a black facia.
Foreman of the jury: Why was the writing really rubbed out?
Detective Constable Halse: The Metropolitan police said it might create a riot, and it was their ground.
Crawford: I am obliged to ask this question. Did you protest against the writing being rubbed out?
Detective Constable Halse: I did. I asked that it might, at all events, be allowed to remain until Major Smith had seen it.
Crawford: Why do you say that it seemed to have been recently written?
Detective Constable Halse: It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it could have been rubbed out by people passing. I did not notice whether there was any powdered chalk on the ground, though I did look about to see if a knife could be found. There were three lines of writing in a good schoolboy’s round hand. The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion. The writing was on the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white. …
A juror: It seems surprising that a policeman should have found the piece of apron in the passage of the buildings, and yet made no inquiries in the buildings themselves. There was a clue up to that point, and then it was altogether lost.
Crawford: As to the premises being searched, I have in court members of the City police who did make diligent search in every part of the tenements the moment the matter came to their knowledge. But unfortunately it did not come to their knowledge until two hours after. There was thus delay, and the man who discovered the piece of apron is a member of the Metropolitan police.
A juror: It is the man belonging to the Metropolitan police that I am complaining of.
At this point Constable Long returned, and produced the pocket book containing the entry which he made at the time concerning the discovery of the writing on the wall.
Constable Long: The words are, ‘The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.’
Coroner: Both here and in your inspector’s report the word ‘Jews’ is spelt correctly?
Constable Long: Yes; but the inspector remarked that the word was spelt ‘Juwes’.
Coroner: Why did you write ‘Jews’ then?
Constable Long: I made my entry before the inspector made the remark.
Coroner: But why did the inspector write ‘Jews’?
Constable Long: I cannot say.
Coroner: At all events, there is a discrepancy?
Constable Long: It would seem so.
Coroner: What did you do when you found the piece of apron?
Constable Long: I at once searched the staircases leading to the buildings.
Coroner: Did you make inquiry in any of the tenements of the buildings?
Constable Long: No.
Coroner: How many staircases are there?
Constable Long: Six or seven.
Coroner: And you searched every staircase?
Constable Long: Every staircase to the top.
Coroner: You found no trace of blood or of recent footmarks?
Constable Long: No.
Coroner: About what time was that?
Constable Long: Three o’clock.
Coroner: Having examined the staircases, what did you next do?
Constable Long: I proceeded to the station.
Coroner: Before going did you hear that a murder had been committed?
Constable Long: Yes. It is common knowledge that two murders have been perpetrated.
Coroner: Which did you hear of?
Constable Long: I heard of the murder in the City. There were rumours of another, but not certain.
Coroner: When you went away did you leave anybody in charge?
Constable Long: Yes; the constable on the next beat – 190, H Division – but I do not know his name.
Coroner: Did you give him instructions as to what he was to do?
Constable Long: I told him to keep observation on the dwelling house, and see if anyone entered or left.
Coroner: When did you return?
Constable Long: About five o’clock.
Coroner: Had the writing been rubbed out then?
Constable Long: No; it was rubbed out in my presence at half-past five.
Coroner: Did you hear anyone object to its being rubbed out?
Constable Long: No. It was nearly daylight when it was rubbed out.
A juror: Having examined the apron and the writing, did it not occur to you that it would be wise to search the dwelling?
Constable Long: I did what I thought was right under the circumstances.
The juror: I do not wish to say anything to reflect upon you, because I consider that altogether the evidence of the police redounds to their credit; but it does seem strange that this clue was not followed up.
Constable Long: I thought the best thing to do was to proceed to the station and report to the inspector on duty.
The juror: I am sure you did what you deemed best.
Crawford: I suppose you thought it more likely to find the body there than the murderer?
Constable Long: Witness: Yes, and I felt that the inspector would be better able to deal with the matter than I was.
Foreman of the jury: Was there any possibility of a stranger escaping from the house?
Constable Long: Not from the front.
Coroner: Did you not know about the back?
Constable Long: No, that was the first time I had been on duty there.
That being all the evidence forthcoming, the coroner said he considered a further adjournment unnecessary, and the better plan would be for the jury to return their verdict and then leave the matter in the hands of the police. …
[He] presumed that the jury would return a verdict of wilful murder against some person or persons unknown. …
On reflection, perhaps it would be sufficient to return a verdict of wilful murder against some person unknown, inasmuch as the medical evidence conclusively demonstrated that only one person could be implicated.
The jury at once returned a verdict accordingly. …
Was the killer of Catherine Eddowes responsible for murdering any of the previous victims? I suggest he was.
Eddowes’s murder is almost identical to those of Annie Chapman and Polly Nichols, the only significant difference being that these two victims were killed much later at night. The alleged removal of Eddowes’s organs and the placing of her intestines on her shoulders mirror the Chapman murder, although whether Eddowes’s organs were removed and taken away is now questionable.
Dr Frederick Gordon Brown stated in his report that the wounds and mutilations were committed after Eddowes died and while she was on the ground. Could she have been knocked out before her throat was cut? Owing to the severity of her facial and throat injuries, this theory cannot be proved or disproved; nor can the suggestion that she was strangled first. But neither possibility can be discounted.
Was the same killer responsible for killing Liz Stride earlier? I believe not, for the reasons previously stated.
Some experts suggest that the killer of these women lived in or near Whitechapel, and that his knowledge of the area would have made it easy for him to disappear into the backstreets and evade detection. While I do not entirely agree with this theory, it would be wrong for me as an investigator to disregard it.
When another murder, similar to the previous ones, was reported, I would have expected word of it to spread like wildfire, putting the whole East End on its guard and making it imperative for the murderer to get away as quickly as possible. In view of this, if he had already killed Stride, would he have remained in the area and searched out another victim within the hour? I suggest not.
I believe that the killer did not come from the area. A look at the map of the murder locations reveals that they are all on the edge of Whitechapel and all a few streets away from main roads that would have assisted the killer to get away quickly. As can be from previous paragraphs with regard to the finding of Eddowes, the killer, on foot, may well have made his escape towards the City and away from Whitechapel, or perhaps doubled back using a longer route; or perhaps he took a hansom cab to do either.
All of this could also explain the fact that at the height of these murders there was a huge police presence in Whitechapel, in both uniform and plainclothes. But all in the Whitechapel area. If the killer moved back and forth, away from Whitechapel towards the City, or returned using a different route, he would have avoided all the police activity.
In addition to flooding the area, the police used all their known informants and spoke to many types of local people in their quest to discover the killer’s identity. The fact that no information of any substance appears to have been obtained again suggests that the killer did not come from Whitechapel.
Another point to consider is that if the killer was a man of good standing in society – and this would have showed in his style of dress – he would not have wanted to venture too far into the heart of Whitechapel for fear of being robbed or murdered himself. Prostitutes most likely realised that this caution among well-heeled clients meant that there was not much business for them in the crime-ridden backstreets of the heart of Whitechapel, so instead they plied their trade nearer to the more affluent edges of the area.
Eddowes’s murder differs in a further respect from the previous murders described above. After her body was discovered, there came to the notice of the police two different pieces of ‘evidence’ which at the time were suggested as being material to the murder and have generally been accepted up until the present day. Both pieces of evidence were found in a stairwell leading to dwellings in Goulston Street. I suggest that perhaps the police and other experts have been wrong all this time about this evidence.
The first item of evidence was a piece of apron stained with blood. This was later examined closely and found also to have on it a smearing of faecal matter. The piece of fabric was later identified as coming from the apron of Catherine Eddowes, and was described as having been cleanly cut. The second item was writing found on a wall at the spot where the piece of apron was found. At the time the police believed that the killer might have written this.
How did these two pieces of evidence come to be discovered? And what is their significance?
After the discovery of Eddowes’s body, Detective Constable Halse, who had been summoned to the murder site, ordered the whole area to be searched. He also undertook a search and, wanting to check the area as quickly as possible, found himself hurrying through the backstreets in search of the fugitive, despite having no description to go on.
At 2.20am, he passed along Goulston Street, apparently seeing nothing untoward. However, he later stated that he ‘believed’ the writing which we now know as ‘The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing’ had appeared on the wall after his search of Goulston Street, because he said that when he had initially examined the entrance to Wentworth Model Dwellings he had found nothing of interest. But was Halse too intent on looking for someone who was hiding to notice what was written on walls?
At 2.55am, PC Alfred Long did make a find. As he made his way along Goulston Street he stopped at the entrance to the same tenement block and made two discoveries: the writing on the wall and what he described at the time as a dirty, bloodstained piece of rag. Why he stopped and why he saw both pieces of evidence as worthy of reporting was never explained and remains a mystery within a mystery.
Why did he suspect that a few lines of writing on a wall and a discarded rag were of any importance? Graffiti was common in poor areas in those days and, besides, the words scrawled on the wall would surely have meant nothing to him at that time. As to the piece of fabric, casually discarded rubbish would have been a common sight on his beat, especially with a street market nearby. What significance could he have seen at that time in the ‘rag’, which he did not identify as coming from Eddowes’s apron until some 12 hours later at the mortuary?
In any event, these finds were hastily reported and Sir Charles Warren, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, took it upon himself to attend Goulston Street despite the fact that this murder was under the jurisdiction of the City of London Police. There were many Jews in the area and, to prevent hostilities against them, Warren ordered the writing to be removed before the City Police could photograph it. However, before it was removed an officer from the City of London Police and one from the Metropolitan Police noted the writing in their pocket books. The two policemen took down different versions: ‘The Juwes are Not the Men That Will be Blamed for Nothing’ and, correctly: ‘The Juwes are the Men That Will Not be Blamed for Nothing’.
Asked to put in writing to the Home Secretary his reasons for removing the graffito, Warren replied:
4 Whitehall Place, S.W.
6th November 1888
Confidential
The Under Secretary of State
The Home Office
Sir,
In reply to your letter of the 5th instant, I enclose a report of the circumstances of the Mitre Square Murder so far as they have come under the notice of the Metropolitan Police, and I now give an account regarding the erasing the writing on the wall in Goulston Street which I have already partially explained to Mr Matthews verbally.
On the 30th September on hearing of the Berner Street murder, after visiting Commercial Street Station I arrived at Leman Street Station shortly before 5 AM and ascertained from the Superintendent Arnold all that was known there relative to the two murders.
The most pressing question at that moment was some writing on the wall in Goulston Street evidently written with the intention of inflaming the public mind against the Jews, and which Mr Arnold with a view to prevent serious disorder proposed to obliterate, and had sent down an Inspector with a sponge for that purpose, telling him to await his arrival.
I considered it desirable that I should decide the matter myself, as it was one involving so great a responsibility whether any action was taken or not.
I accordingly went down to Goulston Street at once before going to the scene of the murder: it was just getting light, the public would be in the streets in a few minutes, in a neighbourhood very much crowded on Sunday mornings by Jewish vendors and Christian purchasers from all parts of London.
There were several Police around the spot when I arrived, both Metropolitan and City.
The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once.
A discussion took place whether the writing could be left covered up or otherwise or whether any portion of it could be left for an hour until it could be photographed; but after taking into consideration the excited state of the population in London generally at the time, the strong feeling which had been excited against the Jews, and the fact that in a short time there would be a large concourse of the people in the streets, and having before me the Report that if it was left there the house was likely to be wrecked (in which from my own observation I entirely concurred) I considered it desirable to obliterate the writing at once, having taken a copy of which I enclose a duplicate.
After having been to the scene of the murder, I went on to the City Police Office and informed the Chief Superintendent of the reason why the writing had been obliterated.
I may mention that so great was the feeling with regard to the Jews that on the 13th ulto. the Acting Chief Rabbi wrote to me on the subject of the spelling of the word ‘Jewes’ on account of a newspaper asserting that this was Jewish spelling in the Yiddish dialect. He added ‘in the present state of excitement it is dangerous to the safety of the poor Jews in the East [End] to allow such an assertion to remain uncontradicted. My community keenly appreciates your humane and vigilant action during this critical time.’
It may be realised therefore if the safety of the Jews in Whitechapel could be considered to be jeopardised 13 days after the murder by the question of the spelling of the word Jews, what might have happened to the Jews in that quarter had that writing been left intact.
I do not hesitate myself to say that if that writing had been left, there would have been an onslaught upon the Jews, property would have been wrecked, and lives would probably have been lost; and I was much gratified with the promptitude with which Superintendent Arnold was prepared to act in the matter if I had not been there.
I have no doubt myself whatever that one of the principal objects of the Reward offered by Mr Montagu was to show to the world that the Jews were desirous of having the Hanbury Street Murder [of Annie Chapman] cleared up, and thus to divert from them the very strong feeling which was then growing up.
I am, Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,
(signed) C. Warren
Does the writing on the wall have any relevance to the four murders? Before we can answer this, we must ask what message, if any, the writer was trying to convey. Whoever wrote the words may have been suggesting that the Jewish community was responsible, through the act of either an individual or a group, for something – but what?
Can we read anything into the spelling of ‘Jews’ as ‘Juwes’? It can also be spelled ‘Jewes’, ‘Jeuwes’, ‘Juwes’, ‘Jeuws’, ‘Juewes’ or ‘Juews’. A dictionary search on these variants will produce the same result in each case: the spelling ‘Jews’ and a definition referring to the group as a whole rather than to particular persons. I believe it was simply an unusual spelling.
Had the writing been put there before that night and could it have been dismissed by anyone passing as just another piece of graffito and only noticed when the fragment of apron was found? I see this as a distinct possibility, and, although the police conducted extensive enquiries in the building, they were never able to prove or disprove this. The officer who found the message stated that he believed it to have been written recently, but, how he deduced that, only he knew.
Does the writing have any connection with the Eddowes murder, any of the previous murders or any of the later murders? The answer is definitely no. This is the only writing ever found which has been suggested as being connected to any of the murders. However, it was not found at the scene of Eddowes’s murder and the content does not refer to either this murder or any other murders before or after.
I am sure that a search of the area would have revealed countless other scrawlings on walls and in alleys, some of which would have had meaning for the writer alone, as this example may have done. But the idea that a killer making his escape would stop to write a message on a wall is unbelievable. He would have wanted to get away from the area as fast as possible, and if he had wanted to write a message I am sure he would have left it at the scene and referred to either himself or the killings.
Moving on to the piece of apron, later identified as having come from Eddowes’s apron, several questions arise. When was it removed? By whom? For what reason? And how long had it been at the location where it was found?
At the time the police put forward several theories. One suggestion was that the killer had cut the piece from the apron to wipe away the blood from his hands and/or the knife, and that he may have even used it to carry her organs away. The police also believed the apron piece showed the direction in which the killer had escaped, regardless of whether he had deliberately left it or accidentally dropped it.
I disagree with all these suggestions and have my own theory based on my research. First, let us assume that, as I suggested earlier, he does not reside in Whitechapel. He kills Eddowes at a location on the edge of Whitechapel and then flees into the misty, murky, dimly lit streets of the City. If the police theory, which has been widely accepted, is correct, he then makes his way back almost into the centre of Whitechapel, where he either deposits or loses the piece of apron. Even if I am wrong and he did live in the heart of the area and decided to go to ground there, he was taking a huge risk in making his way back home knowing that there would be a large police presence in response to Eddowes’s murder and Stride’s a short time earlier. We are asked to believe he would have risked being stopped, searched and possibly apprehended.
I must also ask why the killer would have cut off a piece of the apron. Perhaps it was for the reasons the police suggested at the time. But there is no evidence of a similar act in any of the other murders. If it was to clean his knife with, he could have done that at the scene with one swift wipe across her clothing. If it was to clean his hands with, he could have done that at the scene without cutting off and taking away a piece of apron. Even if he did cut it off, surely he would have discarded it long before reaching Goulston Street. He would not have wanted to be seen walking down the road wiping his bloodstained hands. Besides, the killer may have worn gloves and not needed to clean his hands.
If we accept that the piece of apron was correctly identified as coming from Eddowes’s apron but the killer did not cut it off, what other explanation could there be? I will put forward one which, I am sure, many experts will regard as unbelievable. However, as there is very little direct evidence it is unwise to dismiss anything which may add additional weight to existing evidence and, likewise, theories which could suggest earlier theories have been wrong all these years.
First, the apron piece. This was made of cotton and was wet when found; it was stained with what was described as blood and was smeared with faecal matter. It was found screwed up and lying in the stairwell of the tenement building. The immediate area was no doubt used as a short cut from one part of Whitechapel to another and could have been used by Eddowes at some time that day or after her release from police custody shortly before her death.
My theory revolves around matters of personal feminine hygiene which would account for the blood and faecal matter on the apron piece. In Victorian times women of the lower class, when menstruating, did not use sanitary towels as we know them today. If they bothered to use anything at all, it was a cotton rag. In addition the use of public toilets was unheard of among this class owing to the fact that a penny was required (hence the saying ‘to spend a penny’) and most could not afford this. When outdoors, they would relieve themselves wherever they could: waste ground, alleyways and stairwells, for example. How do we know that the piece of apron was not cut by Eddowes herself from her apron for this purpose and then discarded when totally soiled or when she used the stairwell in Goulston Street as a toilet while passing through at some time before her murder? After all, there was a six-hour gap from when she left home until her arrest for being drunk at approximately 8.30pm, and almost an hour after her release from police custody before her murder. She was in the area earlier that day, before being arrested for being drunk. The apron piece was in the stairwell, so if it had been raining it would not have become wet with the rain. Maybe the wetness was caused by Eddowes’s urine.
Was she killed by the murderer who killed Chapman and Nichols? I say yes. So, at this point we have six murders, three of which, I suggest, were committed by the same killer – Jack the Ripper – and three possibly by three separate killers. However, Martha Tabram must not be discounted as a Ripper victim as she was found with her clothes up around her upper body. This was the same in the case of a later victim, Alice McKenzie, which I will discuss later.
As to when, in my opinion, Eddowes’s organs were removed, the timeline is as follows:
2am: Dr Brown briefly examines the body at the scene, as does Dr Sequeira. From police officers’ testimony in the inquest report we know the murder scene was described as being the darkest part of Mitre Square. This would have made it difficult for the killer to remove the kidney and uterus with precision, and he is hardly likely to have had a lamp in one hand and a six-inch knife in the other and still been able to perform precise excision of these organs.
No thorough examination of the body is conducted at the scene. So there is no evidence to corroborate the suggestion that the organs had been removed by that time. The body is then taken to the mortuary and handed over to the mortuary keeper. No police officials stay with the body.
2.30pm: Twelve hours later Dr Brown attends the mortuary to conduct a post-mortem. This allows more than ample time for someone to remove the organs before Dr Brown arrives.
It should also be noted that half of a human kidney was sent, purportedly by the Ripper, to a local official with a letter suggesting that it had been taken from Eddowes. The organ was examined and found to have a disease similar to that found in the remaining kidney of Eddowes, although I would imagine that half of the population of the East End could have been suffering from kidney complaints.
The gruesome package was believed at the time, and is still widely accepted, to have been a prank carried out by a morbid medical student who may even have had access to the mortuary and the body of Eddowes before the post-mortem. This lends further weight to my suggestion that the victim’s organs could have been removed before the doctor’s arrival.