SERIAL KILLERS: JACK THE RIPPER: Evening Standard (London) 1 October 1888

MORE MURDERS....

The East-end of London was yesterday again much excited by the discovery of two more revolting murders. About one o'clock in the morning, the body of a woman, with her throat cut, was found in a yard belonging to a work-men's club, in Berner-street, and an hour later another woman was found murdered in a corner of Mitre-square, Aldgate. In the latter case, the body was also mutilated, and as this was not the case with the woman found in Berner-street, it is supposed that the murderer was disturbed before completely his dreadful intentions, and that then he proceeded towards the City and committed the second crime. The body of the woman found in Berner-street has been identified as that of ELIZABETH STRIDE. It is reported that an arrest on suspicion was made last night in Southwark.

The painful impression created by the shocking Murders in the East-end has hardly had time to lose anything of its intensity, before the country is again startled by the announcement of two fresh revolting outrages in the same locality. For this time two victims have been required in a single night to slake what appears to be an absolutely demoniacal thirst for blood. It is not, of course, proved that the woman found dead in Berner-street on Sunday morning at one o'clock, and the woman found dead an mutilated in Mitre-square three-quarters of an hour later, were killed by one hand; or that the same human fiend was also responsible for the atrocities in Buck's-row, in Hanbury-street, and for that near the London Hospital. But everything tends to support the theory, and, looking at all the circumstances, it is the only credible hypothesis. The outrages have, in all cases, been perpetrated upon women, and women, so far as can be ascertained, of a particular class: and they have been effected in each instance with a swiftness, a dexterity, a noiselessness, and, we might almost say, a scientific skill, which are, surely, very rare accomplishments in the class from which murderers are commonly drawn. Yet, if we can assume (as it seems to us we must assume) and that these five atrocious crimes, or, at any rate, four of them, had a common origin, we are thunderstruck at the mixture of coolness, cunning, and almost superhuman audacity with which they were achieved. We must suppose that the assassin has the hardihood to emerge from his concealment to commit a fresh murder, within a short distance of the scenes of his former diabolical exploits, and to do this at the very time when an army of policemen, and, indeed, a whole population, are on the look out for him. But that is not all. We must believe that, having killed the poor woman found in Berner-street, and being disturbed in his ghastly business, he then walked out into the Whitechapel-road, found another victim, enticed her into Mitre-square, and then and there, without the loss of a needless second, went through his horrible task of mutilation and murder. In fact at the precise moment the police were gathering about the one place of slaughter, another and more horrible shambles was being provided for their inspection scarcely half a mile away. What comes out most strongly in connection with this series of horrors, is the marvellous celerity with which the murderer works. The exact time occupied over the Hanbury-street butchery was a matter of dispute; but in the Mitre-square case there can hardly be any doubt at all. At half-past one a constable patrolled the Square, and saw nothing; at a quarter to two he came upon the body. The murder, and the further outrages, which are partially described (so far as it is possible to describe them) elsewhere, must have been done during that brief interval. What is more, both of yesterday morning's crimes must have been committed within earshot of persons whose attention would have been attracted by the slightest sign of a scuffle or a struggle. There were two watchmen in the houses in Mitre-square, one of whom at least was known to have been awake and on the alert, and who affirms that he usually heard every passing footstep. But not the faintest sound reached him. Silently, swiftly, and remorselessly, the murderer performed operations which a practises surgeon, working with all the appliances about him, could have hardly have affected in the time; and then, as usual, disappeared, leaving not a shred of evidence behind by which he could be traced. Policemen were swarming upon the scene within a few minutes of the discovery, and, son after, a regular cordon was drawn round the neighbourhood; but, up to the present, there is no indication of any clue. The murder is as mysterious as those which have gone before it.

We do not wonder that these unparalleled events have created wide-spread consternation; but we may hope that they will not lead to one of those panics which are always mischievous, and, in a case like this, may be peculiarly dangerous. The only thing to be done is for the public to assist the authorities by preserving their composure, and declining to be led into a frenzy of fear or an epidemic of unfounded suspicion. Otherwise, it is likely enough that, while nothing will be accomplished towards facilitating the capture of the real criminal, innocent people may be placed in peril by the action of an ignorant and infuriated mob. Those who it in their power to influence public opinion would do well to exercise discretion in giving their own hastily-formed deductions to the world, and, still more, in denouncing, on the faith of evidence which a little examination would show to be altogether worthless, particular individuals who may be as guiltless as themselves. Nor need we make these incidents worse by drawing baseless and exaggerated inferences from them. Terrible as they are, they do not show either that society is rotten to the core, or that human life is less safe in the centre of London than it is in the wilds of Texas. We are not all liable to be hacked to pieces in the streets, or murdered in our beds, because some diabolical maniac can decoy the outcasts of the pavement into dark corners and kill them there. Still less is there any justification for the senseless attacks that have been made on the police. Because they have not yet been able to lay their hands upon this fiendish criminal, it does not at all follow that Scotland-yard is utterly incapable and corrupt. Th unprecedented difficulties which the police have had to encounter in their search for this wretch ought not to be forgotten. He has, so far, left them nothing to go upon. There is not a weapon, not a button, not a fragment of clothing, not a footprint, to help them. The slayer of these poor women has been seen by no one. His sanguinary work is done almost in a moment and he vanishes without leaving a trace. At present it is said that every spot in this quarter of the town is visited by the police patrols once in twelve minutes; but, short as are these "beats," it is clear that they allow margin sufficient for the commission of the most revolting crimes. A policeman cannot be everywhere at once; and if the instant he turns his back it is possible for a woman to be killed and cut to pieces on the spot from which the echoes of his footsteps have hardly died away, it must be admitted that both prevention and detection present difficulties of no ordinary character.

At the same time, we trust that these difficulties will not prove insurmountable. If calling into play every resource known to science and civilisation, if patience, energy, and lavish expenditure can accomplish it, the task of catching the Whitechapel murderer must be accomplished. It is impossible to reconcile ourselves to the alternative that this wholesale assassin is to go unpunished, much less that he is to be permitted to continue his atrocities. The numbers of the Metropolitan Police force are none too large, but it is clear that, considerable as the contingent which has been drafted to the Whitechapel district, it stands in need of further reinforcement. The "beats," short as they are, must be still further reduced, and the constables throughout the whole locality must be in touch with one another every few minutes. The last two murders have, at any rate, served to narrow and concentrate the scope of the detective activity. It was probable before, and it is now nearly certain, that the person so eagerly sought for is a resident in a particular quarter of the East-end, or, at any rate, an habitué there. He must have a haunt somewhere near the western portion of the Whitechapel-road, from which he issues before the commission of one of his crimes, and to which he retires swiftly after the deed is done. The murders, it must be recollected, have been peculiarly local in their character. A square of one mile, at the outside, would include the whole five we have mentioned, and the sites of the last four cluster even more closely together in a circle, the centre of which may be placed somewhere near Whitechapel Church. Considering the rapidity with which the police cordon was drawn round the suspected region yesterday morning, it can hardly be doubted that the murderer must have secreted himself in some place of refuge within a few minutes of the revelation of his night's handiwork. It seems pretty clear that he lives in a particular and well-defined district, which, though densely inhabited, and frequented by a shifting and miscellaneous population, is not too large to be permeated through and through by the agents of the law. Nor is this all. It is, as we have already said, evident that the assassin, whether he is the sordid scoundrel he is represented in Dr. WYNNE BAXTER'S fanciful theory, or whether he is the homicidal madman painted by the popular imagination, is a person of singular skill and dexterity in the use of the knife. The silence, the speed, and the unerring certainty of hi operations speak for themselves. He is no novice in the dissection of the human or the animal body. Finally, it is established that he seeks the subjects of his monstrous frenzy in the women of one class, and that he mutilates them when dead in one way. Here are some indications which, to medical and police experts, are not without value. Such as they are, at any rate, they must be followed up this a pertinacity which we refuse to believe will fail of success in the end. Cunning as the murderer is, with perhaps the incalculable cunning of mania, he is, after all, only one man against thousands. There never was a case which demanded more energy, more untiring activity, and more fertility of resource on the part of the police authorities, and we find it difficult to believe that they will not prove themselves equal to the call.

SERIAL KILLERS: JACK THE RIPPER: Evening Standard (London) 26 September 1888

THE MURDER NEAR GATESHEAD

Telegraphing last evening our Newcastle correspondent says:- "No arrest has yet been made in connection with the murder of Jane Beatmore at Birley Fall, near Gateshead, on Saturday night. During the hole of to-day an entire search has been made by the police for the ? man. It is believed that, if alive, the murderer is somewhere in the vicinity. With this view, the authorities have had the disused coal pits in the neighbourhood thoroughly searched, and all the cornfields and outhouses for miles round have undergone the closet investigation. During the morning, Dr. Phillips, the medical man who examined the body of Annie Chapman, the last victim of the Whitechapel murderer, and Inspector Roots, of the Criminal Investigation Department, Scotland-yard, arrived at Birtley from Durham, which place they had reached last night from London. They were accompanied by Colonel White, Chief Constable of the county of Durham, and Superintendent Harrison. Dr. Phillips saw the body during the afternoon, and made a searching examination of the wounds, to see if they bore any resemblance to the injuries inflicted on the Whitechapel victims. The result of the examination, and the effect it had upon the doctor's mind, were, of course, not made known, but it is reported that the authorities have little belief in the theory that the murderer had any connection with the events in London. In the case of the woman Chapman, it will be remembered that the perpetrator of the crime displayed a certain amount of anatomical knowledge in the horrible dissection he practised upon the body; but in the case of the woman Beatmore the murderer was clumsy in his method, and appears rather to have overcome his victim by brute force. The resemblance in the two cases, however, is striking in the common fact that the wounds were made in the same parts of the body, and in both instances a mere fraction of the mutilation which took place would have been sufficient to have accomplished the murderer's object, if killing was the only desire. Inspector Roots was engaged throughout the day with the local police in making notes of the circumstances, and obtaining their views as to the outrage. Ever since the murder was discovered, the police have been endeavouring to discover a man who, it is said, kept company with the deceased. He has not been at his lodgings since Friday. No reason can be assigned for his sudden disappearance. To-day, crowds of people visited the scene of the murder and the cottage where the body now lies. Policemen have been engaged searching a field of oats adjoining the waggon way for the weapon with which the deed was committed, but they have not succeeded in finding it. An opinion prevails that the murderer has committed suicide, but a telegram from Spennymoor states that a man answering the description of the one wanted was seen at Byers Green Colliery, about fourteen miles away, on Sunday morning. Inspector Roots left Birtley for London this evening."

SERIAL KILLERS: JACK THE RIPPER: Evening Standard (London) 10 September 1888

ANOTHER HORRIBLE MURDER IN WHITECHAPEL.
EXCITEMENT IN THE DISTRICT.

At five minutes to six o'clock on Saturday morning a man, named John Davis, living at 29 Hanbury street, Spitalfields, discovered that a woman had been murdered in the yard at the rear of that house, and when the police were called in the circumstances attending her murder raised a strong presumption that she was another victim of the murderer of Mary Ann Nicholls, in Buck's row, Whitechapel, only a week previously. The victim was an unfortunate woman, so poor that robbery could not be suggested as a motive. The house, 29 Hanbury street (which is not half a mile from Buck's row), is tenanted by a man named Clark, a packing case maker, and is let out in rooms to several people, all very poor and struggling. The front parlour is in the occupation of Mrs. Hardiman, who uses it as a shop for the sale of cat's meat. She and her son also sleep in the room. The back parlour is a sort of sitting room for the landlady and her family, and looks out upon a yard, at the further side of which stands a shed, where the packing case work is done. The passage of the house leads directly to the yard, passing the door of the front parlour, the yard being about four feet below the level of the passage, and reached by two stone steps. the position of the steps creates a recess on their left, the fence between the yard and the next house being about three feet from the steps. In this recess John Davis, as he crossed the yard at five minutes to six o'clock, saw the body of a woman, her clothes so disarranged as to show that the lower part of her body had been horribly mutilated. The throat had been cut so deeply that the head was nearly severed from the trunk. Davis called in Police constable Pinnock, 238H, who sent information to the Station in Commercial street. Inspector Chandler and others hurried to the place and, before the body was removed from its position, the Divisional Surgeon, Mr. G.B. Phillips, of Spital square, was called to examine it. The surgeon said he had no doubt that the throat was first cut, and the stomach subsequently mutilated. The body had been ripped from the abdomen to the breast bones, and then hacked and gashed until the entrails protruded; portions of the flesh hung in shreds, and some of the viscera were on the shoulders. The body was removed as soon as possible to the mortuary of the parishes of Whitechapel and Spitalfields, in Old Montague street, and placed in a shell - the same in which, a week before, the hacked body of the previous victim had been placed. The police description of the body was made out, and before ten o'clock it was identified as that of Annie Chapman, alias Sivey, a name by which she had become known through living with a sieve maker. The police ascertained that Chapman was the correct name of the deceased, and that she was the widow of a man who had been a soldier or veterinary surgeon, and from whom, until about twelve months ago, when he died, she had been receiving 10s a week. Her usual places of abode were the common lodging houses of Spitalfields and Whitechapel. A stout, well proportioned woman, of about five feet in height, she was much given to drink, but is described as quiet, and as one who had "seen better days."

Detective Inspector Abberline, of Scotland yard, who had been detailed to make special inquiries as to the murder of Mary Ann Nicholls, at once took up the inquiries with regard to the new crime, the two being obviously the work of the same hands. He held a consultation with Detective inspector Helson, J Division, in whose district the murder in Buck's row was committed, and with Acting Superintendent West, in charge of the H Division. The result of that consultation was an agreement in the belief that the crimes were the work of one individual only, that the murders were committed where the bodies had been found, and that they were not the work of any gang. A careful examination was made of the flooring of the passage and the walls of the neighbouring house, but not a trace of blood was found. It is considered impossible that a body could have been carried in, supposing no blood had dropped, without arousing from their sleep Mrs. Hardiman and her son, past whose bedroom door the murderer would have had to go. There is no doubt the deceased was acquainted with the fact that the house door was always open or "ajar," and that she and her murderer stealthily passed into the yard. The absence of a pool of blood is accounted for by the quantity the clothes would absorb. The throat was so severed that there could have been no cry, and the tenants of the house agree that nothing was heard to create alarm. The back room of the first floor, which has an uninterrupted view of all the yard, is a bedroom, and was tenanted by a man named Alfred Walker and his father, neither of whom heard a sound.

John Richardson, the son of a woman living in the house, states that, in accordance with his usual practice, he entered the place when on his way to work at Leadenhall Market, and at that time, 4.50, he was certain no one was in the yard. The police, however, have been unable to discover any person who saw the deceased alive after 2 a.m., about which time she left the lodging house, 35 Dorset street, because she had not fourpence to pay for her bed. No corroboration of the story that she was served in a public house at Spitalfields Market, on its opening at five a.m., could be gained; nor of the report that the murderer left a message on a wall in the yard, which was made out to read: "Five; 15 more, and then I give myself up." The murder has created the greatest excitement among women of the class in the neighbourhood. Soon after this murder was reported, a woman reported to the police that a man, who spoke to her in the streets of Spitalfields at an early hour that morning, gave her two half sovereigns, but she refused to do what he wished. Thereupon he commenced to knock her about; she screamed, and he ran off. She afterwards discovered that what he said were half sovereigns were brass medals. She was asked to describe the man; her description did not answer the description of a man for whom the police have been searching in connection with the murder of Mary Ann Nicholls. This is a man known as "Leather Apron," and the police incline to the opinion that, after a hue and cry raised about him during the past few days, he would not have ventured into the neighbourhood of Spitalfields, where he is so well known. The last information the police have of him was up to Sunday, the 2nd inst., when he was in the Borough. It has been said that a knife and apron were discovered beneath the body of Annie Chapman; there was, however, no knife, and though and apron was found it belonged to a man in the house, and no importance is attached to the fact, the police not having taken possession of it. It seems certain that the deceased was robbed of three rings she wore on the left hand, and which the murderer mistook for gold, though, to a woman in the lodging house, she admitted they were only brass. In the pockets of the deceased's dress were found a handkerchief, two small combs, two polished farthings, and an envelope stamped "the Sussex Regiment."

Inspectors Abberline and Helson stated, at a late hour last evening, that they were not in possession of any clue likely to lead to a definite result. They and several detective officers had been engaged following up every point which might lead to information, but without a satisfactory result. The police attach importance to the statement of the woman who had the medals given her as half sovereigns. This woman, Emily Walton, is a lodger in the common lodging houses of Spitalfields, and says that she was with the man at half past two, and that they were in the back yard of one of the houses in Hanbury street. A statement has come to hand that "Leather Apron" was seen as late as Friday, on the Surrey side. Mr. Bagster Phillips made a post mortem examination of the body of Chapman on Saturday afternoon, at the mortuary, and stated that a portion of the flesh was missing from the stomach. The examination confirmed his opinion that she was killed by the cuts in the throat, which were first inflicted. The inquest will be opened today, when the police are instructed to press for a long adjournment, in order to leave them fully at liberty.

At eight o'clock last night the Scotland yard authorities had come to a definite conclusion as to the description of the murderer of two of the women found dead at the East end, and the following is the official intimation sent to every Station throughout the Metropolis and suburbs:- "Commercial street, 8.20 p.m. - Description of a man wanted, who entered a passage of the house at which the murder was committed, with a prostitute, at 2.0 a.m., on the 8th. Age 37, height 5ft 7in, rather dark beard and moustache. Dress - Short, dark jacket, dark vest and trousers, black scarf, and black felt hat. Spoke with a foreign accent." This description has been arrived at after mature consideration on the part of the most experienced members of the detective police force.

In the course of Saturday night and yesterday morning the police arrested two men on suspicion of being concerned in the crime. One was found by an officer in Buck's row shortly after one o'clock on Sunday morning. He appeared to be hiding in the street, and, when accosted by the officer, rushed off at great speed. An alarm was raised, and, after a sharp race, the man was arrested. He was a villainous looking fellow, with long hair and shaggy beard, dressed only in a pair of ragged blue serge trousers and in an old dirty shirt. He resisted his captors, but was eventually secured and conveyed to Bethnal green police station. No weapon was found upon him. He gave an account of himself, upon which inquiries were set on foot, which resulted in the man being released from custody. The second arrest was effected in Gloucester street, where a man, aged about 40, having the look of a seafarer, was arrested. It was obvious, however, from the replies which he gave, and his general appearance, that he was not the man sought for, and after he had spent some time in Commercial street Station, he was also set at liberty. A man was arrested at Deptford yesterday afternoon, on suspicion of being the murderer, and Inspector Chandler went down to see him. He has not yet been brought up to Commercial street Police Station. It is understood, however, that not much importance is attached to this arrest.

All day yesterday five policemen guarded the scene of the crime in Hanbury street, to which hundreds of people obtained admission on Saturday on paying a fee of one penny. No one was admitted yesterday unless he resided in the house. In the street half a dozen costermongers took up their stand and did a brisk business in fruit and refreshments. Thousands of respectably dressed persons visited the scene and occasionally the road became so crowded that the constables had to clear it by making a series of raids upon the spectators. The windows of the adjoining houses were full of persons watching the crowd below. A number of people also visited the house in Dorset street where the murdered woman lodged. At night Hanbury street was all but impassable from the crowds who had assembled on the scene of the murder.

A young woman named Lyons has stated that at three o'clock yesterday afternoon she met a strange man in Flower and Dean street, one of the worst streets in the East end of London. He asked her to come to the Queen's Head public house at half past six, and drink with him. Having obtained a promise that she would do so, he disappeared, but was at the house named at the appointed time. While they were conversing, Lyons noticed a large knife in his right hand trousers pocket, and called another woman's attention to the fact. A moment later, Lyons was startled by a remark which the stranger addressed to her. "You are about the same style of woman as the one that's murdered," he said. "What do you know about her?" asked the woman, to which the man replied, "You are beginning to smell a rat. Foxes hunt geese, but they don't always find 'em." having uttered these words, the man hurriedly left. Lyons followed until near Spitalfields Church, and turning round at this spot, and noticing that the woman was behind him, the stranger ran swiftly into Church street, and was lost from sight. The description of this man is identical with that of the man described as "Leather Apron." Over 200 common lodging houses have been visited by the police, in the hope of finding some trace of this man, but he has succeeded in evading arrest.

Mrs. Richardson, the landlady of 29 Hanbury street, the house where the body of the deceased was found, in the course of an interview, said:- "I have lived at this house fifteen years, and my lodgers are poor but hard working people. Some have lodged with me as long as twelve years. They mostly work at the Fish Market or the Spitalfields Market. Some of the carmen in the Fish Market go out to work as early as one a.m., while others go out at four and five, so that the place is open all night, and any one can get in. It is certain that the deceased came voluntarily into the yard, as if there had been any struggle it must have been heard. Several lodgers sleep at the back of the house, and some had their windows open, but no noise was heard from the yard. One of my lodgers, a carman, named Thompson, employed at Goodson's, in Brick lane, went out at four o'clock in the morning. He did not go into the yard, but he did not notice anything particular in the passage as he went out. My son John came in at ten minutes to five, and gave a look round before he went to market. He went through to the yard, but no one was there then, and everything was right. Just before six o'clock, when Mr. Davis, another of my lodgers, came down, he found the deceased lying in the corner of the yard, close to the house, and by the side of the step. The lower part of her body was uncovered. There was not the slightest sign of a struggle, and the pool of blood which flowed from the throat after it was cut was close to the step where she lay. She does not appear to have moved an inch after the fiend struck her with the knife. She must have died instantly. The murderer must have gone away from the spot covered with blood. There was an earthenware pan containing water in the yard; but this was not discoloured, and could not, therefore, have been used by the murderer. The only possible clue that I can think of is that Mr. Thompson's wife met a man about a month ago lying on the stairs. This was about four o'clock in the morning. He looked like a Jew; and spoke with a foreign accent. When asked what he was doing there, he replied that he was waiting to do a 'doss' before the market opened. He slept on the stairs that night, and I believe he has slept on the stairs on other nights. Mrs. Thompson is certain she could recognise the man again, both by his personal appearance and his peculiar voice. The police have taken a full and careful description of this man."

The deputy of a lodging house at 30 Dorset street, stated that Annie Chapman used to ledge there about two years ago with a man called Jack Sivvy, a sieve maker; hence her nickname, Annie Sivvy. She appeared to be a quiet woman, and not given to drinking; in fact, he was quite surprised to hear that she had been seen drinking the night before her murder. The woman had two children to his knowledge - a boy, who was a cripple, and who, he believed, was at some charitable school; and a daughter, who was somewhere in France.

Timothy Donovan, the deputy of the lodging house, 35 Dorset street, where the deceased frequently stayed, stated that the deceased stayed there on Sunday night, the 2nd inst. She had been in the habit of coming there for the past four months. She was a quiet woman, and gave no trouble. He had heard her say she wished she was as well off as her relations; but she never told him who her friends were, or where they lived. A pensioner or a soldier usually came to the lodging house with her on Saturday nights, and generally he stayed until the Monday morning. He would be able to identify the man instantly if he saw him. After the man left on Monday deceased would usually keep in the room for some days longer, the charge being eightpence per night. This man stayed at the house from Saturday to Monday, the 3rd inst., and when he went the deceased went with him. She was not seen at the house again until Friday night about half past seven o'clock, when she passed the doorway, and Donovan calling out, asked her where she had been since Monday, and why she had not slept there, and she replied, "I have been in the infirmary." Then she went on her way in the direction of Bishopsgate street. About 1.40 a.m. on Saturday morning she came again to the lodging house, and asked for a bed. The message was brought upstairs to him, and he sent downstairs to ask for the money. The woman replied, "I haven't enough now, but keep my bed for me. I shan't be long." Then, as she was going away, she said to John Evans, the watchman, "Brummy, I won't be long. See that Jim keeps my bed for me." She was the worse for drink at the time, and was eating some baked potatoes. He saw nothing of her again until he was called to the mortuary on Saturday morning, when he identified the deceased by her features and her way hair, which was turning grey. After the deceased left on Monday he found two large bottles in the room, one containing medicine, and labelled as follows: "St. Bartholomew's Hospital. Take two tablespoonfuls three times a day." The other bottle contained a milky lotion, and was labelled, "St. Bartholomew's Hospital. The lotion. Poison." This confirmed her statement that she had been under medical treatment. On being asked whether he knew the man called "Leather Apron," Donovan said he knew him well. He came to the lodging house about twelve months ago, a woman being his companion. In the early hours of the morning the woman commenced screaming murder, and it seemed that "Leather Apron" had knocked her down and torn her hair and clothes. "Leather Apron" said the woman was trying to rob him, but he (Donovan) did not believe him, and turned him out of the house. The man had come there several times since for a lodging, but they would not admit him.

About ten o'clock on Saturday morning a woman, named Amelia Farmer, gave information that she had been a fellow lodger with the deceased, and had known her for some considerable time. She stated that the deceased woman was Annie Chapman, the wife of a veterinary surgeon, who died at Windsor about eighteen months ago. She was, accordingly, taken to the mortuary at half past eleven o'clock, and immediately recognised her friend. Later on she stated what she knew of the history of the murdered woman. Annie Chapman had for a long time been separated from her husband, by mutual agreement, and had been allowed 10s a week by him for her maintenance. The money had been sent by Post office Order, made payable at the Commercial street Post office, and had always come regularly. About eighteen months ago the instalments suddenly ceased, and, upon inquiry being made, it was found that the husband had died. Annie Chapman had two children, but where they were Farmer could not say. The deceased had a mother and sister, who were living in the neighbourhood of Brompton or Fulham. Farmer had been in the habit of writing letters for her friend, but could not remember the exact address of the mother or sister, but thought it was near the Brompton Hospital. On Monday Chapman intimated her intention of communicating with her sister, saying, "If I can get a pair of boots from my sister, I shall go hop picking." Another relation, a brother in law of the deceased, lived somewhere in or near Oxford street. Farmer asserted that her murdered friend was apparently a sober, steady going sort of woman, and one who seldom took any drink. For some time past she had been living occasionally with a man named Ted Stanley, who had been in the militia, but was mow working at some neighbouring brewery. Ted Stanley was a good tempered man, rather tall - about 5ft 10in - fair, and of florid complexion. He was the last man in the world to have quarrelled with Chapman, nor would he have injured her in any way. At the beginning of the week the deceased had been rather severely knocked about in the breast and face by another woman of the locality through jealousy in connection with Ted Stanley, and had been obliged to go to the casual ward. As a regular means of livelihood she had made antimacassars for sale. Sometimes she would buy flowers or matches, with which to eke out a living. Farmer was certain that on Friday night the murdered woman wore three rings, which where not genuine, but were imitations, otherwise she would not have troubled to go out and find money for her lodgings.

Mrs. Fiddymont, wife of the proprietor of the Prince Albert public house, better known as the "Clean House," at the corner of Brushfield and Stewart streets, half a mile from the scene of the murder, states that at seven o'clock on Saturday morning she was standing in the bar talking with another woman, a friend, in the first compartment. Suddenly there came into the middle compartment a man whose rough appearance frightened her. He had on a brown stiff hat, a dark coat, and no waistcoat. He came in with his hat down over his eyes, and, with his face partly concealed, asked for a half pint of four ale. She drew him the ale, and meanwhile looked at him through the mirror at the back of the bar. As soon as he saw the woman in the other compartment watching him, he turned his back, and got the partition between himself and her. What struck Mrs. Fiddymont particularly was the fact that there were blood spots on the back of his right hand. This, taken in connection with his appearance, caused her uneasiness. She also noticed his shirt was torn. As soon as he had drunk the ale, which he swallowed at a gulp, he went out. Her friend went out also to watch him.

That friend is Mrs. Mary Chappell, who lives at 28 Stewart street, near by. Her story corroborates Mrs. Fiddymont's, and is more particular. When the man came in, the expression of his eyes caught her attention, his look was so startling and terrifying. It frightened Mrs. Fiddymont so that she requested Mrs. Chappell to stay. He wore a light blue check shirt, which was torn badly, into rags in fact, on the right shoulder. There was a narrow streak of blood under his right ear, parallel with the edge of his shirt. There was also dried blood between the fingers of his hand. When he went out she slipped out by the other door, and watched him as he went towards Bishopsgate street. She called Joseph Taylor's attention to him, and Taylor followed him. Joseph Taylor is a builder, of 22 Stewart street. He states that as soon as his attention was attracted to the man he followed him. He walked rapidly, and came alongside the man, but did not speak to him. The man was rather thin, about 5ft 8in high, and apparently between 40 and 50 years of age. He had a shabby genteel look, pepper and salt trousers, which fitted badly and dark coat. When Taylor came alongside him the man glanced at him, and Taylor says, "His eyes were as wild as a hawk's." The man walked holding his coat together at the top. He had a nervous and frightened way about him. He had a light moustache and short sandy hair. Taylor ceased to follow him, but watched him as far as "Dirty Dick's" in Halfmoon street, where he became lost to view.

John Davis, who was the first to make the shocking discovery, says - Having had a cup of tea in the morning, about six o'clock, I went down stairs. When I got to the end of the passage I saw a female lying down, her clothing up to her knees, and her face covered with blood. What was lying beside her I cannot describe - it was part of her body. I had heard no noise, nor had my missus. I saw Mr. Farley's men waiting at the back of the Black swan ready to go to their work - making packing cases. I said to them, "Here's a sight; a woman must have been murdered." I then ran to the police station in Commercial road, and told them what I had seen, and some constables came back with me. I did not examine the woman when I saw her - I was too frightened at the dreadful sight. Our front door at 29 Hanbury street is never bolted, and anyone has only to push it open and walk through to the gate at the back yard. Immoral women have at times gone there, and Mrs. Richardson, our landlady, had occasion to keep a closet locked there, but no lock has ever been placed on the front door; at least, I have never seen one; but it is only a fortnight ago that I came to lodge there. I have known people open the passage door and walk through into the yard when they have had no right there. There are about fifteen altogether living in the house.

Mrs. Davis has made the following statement:- The bell was ringing for six o'clock, and that is how I know the time that my husband went downstairs. He went down, but did not return, as he tells me that when he saw the deceased, and the shocking state in which she was, he at once ran off for the police. We never heard any screams, either in the night or this morning. I went down myself shortly after, and nearly fainted away at what I saw. The poor woman's throat was cut, and the inside of her body was lying beside her. Some one beside me then remarked that the murder was just like the one committed in Buck's row. the other one could not have been such a dreadful sight of this, for the poor woman found this morning was quite ripped open. She was lying in a corner of the yard, on her back, with her legs drawn up. It was just in such a spot that no one could see from the outside, and thus the dead creature might have been lying there for some time.

Two young men, named Simpson and Stevens, living in Dorset street, who knew the deceased as residing at that address, state that her name is Annie Chapman. She returned thither about twelve o'clock on Saturday night, stating that she had been to see some friends at Vauxhall. The murdered woman had two children - one a girl, aged 14, at present performing in a circus travelling in France. The other is a boy, between four and five years of age. He is now at a school in Windsor, the native place of the deceased.

At five minutes after eleven o'clock on Saturday an exciting incident took place. A man suddenly attacked a woman in the Spitalfields Market. After felling her to the ground with a blow he began kicking her, and pulled out a knife. Some women who had collected, on seeing the knife, raised such piercing shrieks of "Murderer" that they reached the crowds in Hanbury street. There was at once a rush for Commercial street, where the markets are situate. Seeing the crowd swarming round him the man who was the cause of the alarm made furious efforts to reach the woman, from whom he had been separated by some persons who interfered on her behalf. He threw these on one side, fell upon the woman knife in hand, and inflicted several stabs on her head and her forehead, neck, and fingers before he was pulled off. At this juncture the police arrived, arrested the man, and after a while had the woman conveyed on a stretcher to the police station in Commercial street, where she was examined by the divisional surgeon. She was found to be suffering from several wounds, but none of them was considered dangerous.

SERIAL KILLERS: JACK THE RIPPER: Evening Standard (London) 1 September 1888

ANOTHER MURDER..........

A woman of the class known as "unfortunate" was murdered under circumstances of a most revolting character in Buck's row, Whitechapel road, yesterday morning; and as this is the second murder of the same kind which has taken place within three weeks, the whole district is in a great state of excitement. Not far from the Whitechapel station of the Metropolitan Railway, and on the opposite site, is a narrow street known as baker's row, and the first turning on the right is White's row, of which Buck's row is the continuation. At the beginning of Buck's row on the right hand side is a Board School building, to the rear of which is a yard used for the storage of bricks, and next to this yard are small cottages inhabited by labouring people. Yesterday morning the body of a woman was found lying on the footpath, against the gates of the yard, and in the middle of the street was a pool of blood. There was no trace whatever to indicate how the body came where it was found. Opposite where the body lay is the wall of Essex Wharf, and to the left of that a large clothier's factory. Police constable Neil was walking along Buck's row between four and half past in the morning, when he noticed the body on the footpath, and a very brief examination revealed the fact of her murder. Her throat was cut from ear to ear, and her body had been ripped up from the abdomen almost to the breast bone, while a second cut gashed the left thigh. The body was conveyed to the mortuary in Whitechapel road, adjoining the Pavilion Theatre. The deceased was about 35 years of age, had dark hair and small features, was of the average height, and well nourished, by no means exhibiting any signs of starvation. Yet she must have been recently an inmate of Lambeth Workhouse, because the name of that institution was found on her petticoat. Her clothes consisted of a brown ulster, showing signs of hard wear, a brown linsey skirt and jacket, a grey linsey petticoat, a flannel petticoat, dark blue ribbed stockings, braid garters, and side spring shoes. The bonnet was black straw, faced with black velvet. The wounds on the body are thought to have been committed before the injuries to the throat were inflicted, but the precise fact cannot be ascertained until the inquest, when the medical man will be examined. The first cut in the body was probably the earliest wound inflicted, and it is thought that the wretched victim started from her murderer, causing the knife to penetrate the groin and slip across the left hip. In all probability she then fell, when her assailant with one desperate cut upward opened the body from groin to breast bone. Then the wounds were inflicted in the throat. Here, again, there were two cuts, one reaching from the left ear to nearly the middle of the throat, and the other a separate and distinct gash passing from ear to ear. The ferocious character of the wounds justify the belief that the poor woman was attacked by a maniac. They could not have been inflicted by the victim, nor are they likely to have been the work of several hands. With regard to the weapon used, the current belief is that the murder must have been committed with a butcher's knife. This is the third murder of a woman which has taken place in Whitechapel within twelve months. In each case the victim was killed by stabs or cuts, and when found was either dead or so near death as to be incapable of giving any clue as to who had attacked her.

Another account states that when Police constable Neil discovered the body he roused the people living in the house next to the stable yard, which is occupied by a carter named Green and his family; and also Mr. Walter Perkins, the resident manager at the Essex Wharf, on the opposite side of the road, which is very narrow at this point. Neither Mr. Perkins nor any of the Green family, although the latter were sleeping within a few yards of where the body was found, had heard any sounds of a struggle. Dr. Llewellyn, who lives only a short distance away in Whitechapel road, was sent for and promptly arrived on the scene. He found the body lying on the back across the gateway, and the briefest examination proved that life was extinct. Death had occurred not long before, because the extremities were still warm. With the assistance of Police sergeant Kirby and Police constable Thane the body was removed to the Whitechapel road mortuary. A general opinion is entertained that the spot where the body was found was not the scene of the murder. Buck's row runs through from Thomas street to Brady street, and in the latter street what appeared to be blood stains were early in the morning found at irregular distances on the footpaths on each side of the street. Occasionally a larger splash was visible, and from the way in which the marks were scattered it seems as though the person carrying the mutilated body had hesitated where to deposit his ghastly burden, and had gone from one side of the road to the other, until the obscurity of Buck's row afforded the shelter sought for. The street had been crossed twice within the space of about 120 yards. The point at which the stains were first visible is in front of the gateway to Honey's mews, in Brady street, about 150 yards from the point where Buck's row commences.

Several persons living in Brady street state that early in the morning they heard screams, but this is by no means an uncommon incident in the neighbourhood; and with one exception nobody seems to have paid any particular attention to what was probably the death struggle of an unfortunate woman. The exception was a Mrs. Colville, who lives only a short distance from the foot of Buck's row. According to her statement she was awakened early in the morning by her children, who said some one was trying to get into the house. She listened and heard a woman screaming "Murder! police!" five or six times. The voice faded away as though the was going in the direction of Buck's row, and all was quiet. She only heard the steps of one person. Mrs. Green, Mr. and Mrs. Perkins, and the watchmen in two neighbouring factories agree that the night was unusually quiet. Shortly after noon yesterday some men examining the pavement in Buck's row above the gateway found two spots of blood in the roadway. They were some feet away from the gate, and they might have dropped from the hands or clothing of the murderer as he fled.

Dr. Llewellyn has made the following statement:-

"I was called to Buck's row about five minutes to four this morning by Police constable Thane, who said a woman had been murdered. I went to the place at once, and found deceased lying on the ground in front of the stable yard door. She was lying on her back, with her legs straight, as though she had been laid down. Police constable Neil told me that the body had not been touched. The throat was cut from ear to ear, and the woman was quite dead. The extremities of the body were still warm, showing that death had not long ensued. I ordered the removal of the body to the mortuary, telling the police to send for me again if anything of importance transpired. There was a very small pool of blood on the pathway, not more than half a pint at the outside. This fact, and the way in which the deceased was lying, made me think at the time that it was at least probable that the murder was committed elsewhere, and the body conveyed to Buck's row. At half past five I was summoned to the mortuary by the police, and was astonished at finding the other wounds. I have seen many horrible cases, but never such a brutal affair as this. From the nature of the cuts on the throat it is probable that they were inflicted with the left hand. There is a mark at the point of the jaw on the right side of the deceased's face as though made by a person's thumb, and a similar bruise on the left side as if the woman's head had been pushed back and her throat then cut. There is a gash under the left ear reaching nearly to the centre of the throat, and another cut apparently starting from the right ear. The neck is severed back to the vertebra, which is also slightly injured. The abdominal wounds are extraordinary for their length and the severity with which they have been inflicted. One cut extends from the base of the abdomen to the breast bone. Deceased's clothes were loose, and the wounds could have been inflicted while she was dressed."

No money was found upon the deceased, and all she had in the pocket of her dress was a handkerchief, a small comb, and a piece of looking glass.

As news of the murder spread during the latter part of the day, women went to view the body, and at length it was found that a woman answering the description of the murdered woman had lodged in a common lodging house, 18 Thrawl street, Spitalfields. Women from that place were fetched, and they identified the deceased as "Polly," who had shared a room with three other women in the place on the usual terms of such houses - nightly payment of 4d each, each woman having a separate bed. The deceased had lodged in the house only for about three weeks. Nothing more was known of her but when she presented herself for her lodging on Thursday night she was turned away by the deputy because she had not the money. She was then the worse for drink, but not drunk, and turned away laughing, saying, "I'll soon get my 'doss' money; see what a jolly bonnet I've got now." She was wearing a bonnet which she had not been seen with before, and left the lodging house door. A woman of the neighbourhood saw her as late as half past two yesterday morning in Whitechapel road, opposite the church, and at the corner of Osborne street. About half past seven o'clock last evening Mary Ann Monk, an inmate of Lambeth Workhouse, was taken to the mortuary, and identified the body as that of Mary Ann Nicholls, also called "Polly" Nicholls. She knew her, she said, as they were inmates of the Lambeth Workhouse together in April and May, the deceased having been passed there from another workhouse. On the 12th of may, according to Monk, Nicholls left the workhouse to take a situation as servant at Ingleside, Wandsworth common. It afterwards became known that Nicholls betrayed her trust as domestic servant by stealing £3 from her employer and absconding. From that time she had been wandering about. Monk met her, she said, about six weeks ago, when herself out of the workhouse, and drank with her.

A policeman on duty in Whitechapel early yesterday morning found the body of a woman lying on the foot path in Buck's row. Her throat had been cut, and she had been otherwise so mutilated as to suggest that she had been murdered by a madman. the body has been identified as that of Mary Ann Nicholls, a recent inmate of the Lambeth Workhouse.

The two brutal murders which have followed each other in such quick succession in Whitechapel are still unsolved mysteries. Whether the perpetrators are ever brought to justice or not, the crime in each case remains a fearful testimony to the amount of hideous ferocity which still lies close alongside the borders of our fairest civilisation. Early yesterday morning, as a policeman was walking down a place known as Buck's row, in Whitechapel, he discovered the body of a woman, from thirty five to forty years of age, lying in a pool of blood and quite dead. Her throat had been cut right across, and a gaping wound two inches wide stretched from ear to ear. She was also found on examination to have been ripped up from groin to the breast bone. The body has since been identified as that of Mary Ann Nicholls, who was formerly in domestic service at Wandsworth, from which she absconded with some money. Afterwards she was for a time in Lambeth Workhouse, and was latterly living at a common lodging house in Spitalfields. A night watchman who had been in the neighbourhood of Buck's row all night heard neither screams nor scuffle. Some of the neighbours heard a brawl about midnight. But such sounds are too common in such a neighbourhood to attract even a passing notice. So much for yesterday's tragedy, which it is impossible to avoid connecting with that of three weeks ago. It will be remembered that about half past three o'clock on the morning of Tuesday, the 7th of August, a cabman returning to his lodgings in George yard buildings, Whitechapel, saw a woman lying on the staircase, but, as he said afterwards, did not pay any particular attention to it, as the sight of a woman lying there, drunk or simply asleep, was nothing uncommon. It was only on a workman passing down the stairs about two hours afterwards that the truth was ascertained, and the woman discovered to be a corpse. She had received no less than thirty nine wounds in different parts of her body, which the surgeon rather superfluously observed could not have been inflicted by herself; and it was clear that a dreadful crime had been committed. The unfortunate victim has since been identified, but the murderer is still at large; and it is not surprising that the murder of yesterday, following so closely on the tragedy of three weeks ago, should fill the whole neighbourhood with terror. the police, of course, have their theories on the subject. But they seem to be purely conjectural, and based on no substantial evidence. One hypothesis is that both murders have been committed by a gang of street robbers, who systematically extort money from any unfortunate and defenceless woman whom they meet - whose life is naturally in great danger if she refuses their demands. Another and even more horrible supposition is that the murders are the work of an escaped lunatic, who is concealed in the vicinity, and certainly the extraordinary and unnecessary violence used in both cases might go some way towards supporting this conception. The love of the marvellous, common to human nature in every station of life, will account for the ready acceptance which this suggestion has met with among the population of the district. But if ever the mystery is unravelled, it will probably be found to have had its origin in some much more commonplace circumstances.

The most remarkable point about these two crime is, that in neither case is it possible to conceive any motive which bears even a semblance of plausibility. From the description of the two women it could hardly be jealousy, and, in any case, jealousy does not, as a rule, mangle and mutilate its victims. The same may be said of theft. No one who murdered Mary Ann Nicholls for the sake of the little money she might have happened to possess would have stopped to inflict more wounds than were necessary for his purpose. Moreover, it seems to be the accepted opinion that the wounds on the lower part of the body were inflicted before the throat was cut; and it is difficult to believe that anybody whose only object was plunder would have inflicted them at all. There are shorter and readier ways of taking human life than this; and the theory of the woman having been murdered by a gang of thieves because she refused them money is negatived by her notorious poverty, and by the evidence of the watchman and others, who observed nobody about the street at or near the time of the murder. If the cries that were heard during the night proceeded from the unfortunate woman, she was then dressed and in the streets. Yet these wounds could hardly have been inflicted out of doors, and the woman could certainly not have raised a very serious alarm after such injuries. The probability seems to be that whilst wandering about she was met by some scoundrel, mad with drink or with the thirst for blood, who lured her to one of those houses where crimes are no uncommon occurrence; and that after the murder the body was carried to the secluded corner where it was found. But this, of course, is conjecture. At present all we know is, that within the last three weeks two murders of a very similar character have been committed in London, rivalling in their ghastliness all that fiction has ever invented of such crimes, and that the criminals have, not only escaped, but have left no trace behind them. The inhabitants of a district such as that in which these horrors were perpetrated are too familiar with sights and sounds of violence, and with the figures of criminals and ruffians, to take notice of any particular individual who, in other parts of the town, would draw immediate notice on himself. A murderer's chances of escape from this cause alone are much greater in such a neighbourhood than elsewhere, and this, of course, makes it much more difficult for the police to obtain any clue. We must be careful, therefore, of attaching any blame to them. Nobody can expect that they should have evidence ready to hand as to the identity of the murderer of Nicholls. Even in the other case, though weeks have elapsed, it is little enough time for tracking a ruffian through the haunts of vice and crime, where so many are interested, rather in screening him than in bringing him to justice.

Murders of this sort are crimes of no common character. The monstrous and wanton brutality by which they are distinguished is rather what we might expect from a race of savages than from even the most abandoned and most degraded classes in a civilised community. It is terrible to reflect that at the end of the nineteenth century, after all our efforts, religious, educational, and philanthropic, such revolting and sickening barbarity should still be found in the heart of this great City, and be able to lurk undetected in close contact with all that is most refined, elegant, and cultivated in human society. It is quite true, of course, that the slums of a mighty capital like London can never be effectually "flushed" and that accumulations of wickedness and misery must continue to fester there for many a long day yet. This, we say, it true; and when it is stated in so many words we give an intellectual assent to it. Yet, for all that, it is extremely difficult to realise it, or to prevent ourselves from being unutterably shocked whenever the proof of it is forced upon us. It is this circumstance in connection with these Whitechapel murders which invests them with such a loathsome pre-eminence over other crimes of the same kind. The mutilation of the unfortunate woman in the latest case is something too diabolical and too disgusting for the mind to dwell upon; and we would willingly take refuge in the assumption that it was the doing of a madman, were there any evidence to support what we are afraid is only an idea invented for the occasion. Civilisation is sometimes supposed to penetrate even to the lowest stratum of humanity. Some of its light and warmth is believed to descend from above and lessen the ferocity of the most savage and brutish of mankind. But it is difficult to believe that this is so with such a spectacle before us as that of this unhappy creature, flung down into the street like a dog, gashed and mangled in a manner which betrays a love of bloodshed for its own sake, and a blind passion of rage such as sometimes try to hope is limited to the lower animals. It would seem as if one of the effects of our boasted progress and culture is to exaggerate the social extremes, so that while on the one hand we have improvement and hope, on the other there is only despair and greater debasement. The reflection is not a pleasant one, but the lesson it teaches should not be lost.

SERIAL KILLERS: JACK THE RIPPER: Evening Standard (London) 24 August 1888

Mr. George Collier, the Deputy Coroner for South East Middlesex, yesterday resumed the inquiry at the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel, into the circumstances attending the death of a woman, supposed to be Martha Turner, aged thirty five, a hawker, lately living at 4 Star place, Commercial road, East, who was discovered early on the morning of Tuesday, the 7th inst, lying dead on the first floor landing of some model dwellings known as George yard buildings, Commercial street, Spitalfields. The woman when found presented a shocking appearance, her body being covered with 39 stab wounds, some of which had been done with a bayonet. The affair caused great excitement, and much interest was manifested in the proceedings. It is worthy of mention that the murder was committed on Bank Holiday night, and is almost identical with another murder, which was perpetrated near the same spot on the night of the previous Bank Holiday. The victim in each case was a woman of bad reputation, and their cowardly assailants have up till now evaded capture.

Mr. Henry Samuel Tabran, of 6 River terrace, East Greenwich, stated that he was a foreman packer in a furniture warehouse. He identified the body of the woman now dead as his wife. Her name was Martha Tabran, and she was thirty nine years of age. He last saw her alive 18 months ago in the Whitechapel road. Witness had been separated from her 13 years. He went before Mr. Benson, the magistrate, and said he should not live with her on account of her intemperate habits. She took out a warrant for his arrest for desertion, but he agreed to allow her 12s. a week. This was carried on for three years, but afterwards finding out how she was living he only gave her 2s 6d a week. She was at that time living with another man.

Henry Turner, who stated that he lived at the Working Mens' Home, Commercial street, said that he was a carpenter by trade, but latterly he had got his living as a hawker. Up till three weeks previous to this affair he was living with the deceased. They had lived together on and off for nine years. She used to get her living on the streets. He last saw her alive on the Saturday before her death, when they met accidentally in Leadenhall street. Witness first heard of her death on the day of the inquest. On the Saturday when he saw her she said she had got no money, so witness gave her some to buy stock with. She was a woman who, when she had the money, would get drunk with it. She was in the habit of staying out late at night but witness did not know what for. He was not aware that she was acquainted with "Pearly Poll." They lived comfortably till she took to drink, when he left her for a time. He never quarrelled with her, but simply left her.

By Mr. Reid - Deceased had stayed out all night, and told him on her return that she had been seized with a fit and taken to the police station. Witness could not say that that was true, but when she had been drinking she was subject to hysterical fits.

Mary Bousfield, 4 Star place, Commercial road, stated that Turner and the deceased lived at her house till three weeks before her death. She was a woman who would rather have a glass of ale than a cup of tea; but she did not get drunk. Witness said that Turner was very good to her, and helped to support two children she had by her husband. Deceased was greatly in witness's debt, and left without giving notice. Since then she had returned and forced the window, and occupied the room one night without witness knowing she was there.

Ann Morris, 23 Lisbourn street, E., a widow, stated that she was the sister in law of the deceased. Witness last saw her alive on Bank Holiday, as she was entering the White Swan public house in Whitechapel road. Deceased then appeared to be sober.

Mary Ann Connelly (Pearly Poll) was next examined, but, before giving evidence, Inspector Reid asked that she might be cautioned previous to being sworn. This the Coroner did, and witness then said that she had been living at a lodging house in Dorset street. She was single. She had known the deceased four or five months under the name of "Emma." The last time she saw her alive was on Bank Holiday at the corner of George yard, Whitechapel. They went to a public house together, and parted about 11.45. They were accompanied by two soldiers, one a private and the other a corporal. They picked up the soldiers together, and entered several public houses where they drank. When they separated the deceased went away with the private. They went up George yard, while witness and the corporal went up Angel alley. Before they parted witness and the corporal had a quarrel and he hit her with a stick. She did not hear deceased have any quarrel. Witness never saw the deceased again alive.

By the Coroner - Deceased was a woman who did not drink much. Witness had tried to identify the two men, and at one of the barracks where the men were paraded before her, she picked out two men who she thought were the same that were with her and the deceased on the night of the murder. That was at Wellington Barracks. She had never seen the men before.

By Inspector Reid - Witness left the corporal at the corner of George yard about five or ten minutes past twelve, and afterwards went along Commercial street, towards Whitechapel. She heard no screams, and was first informed of the murder on the Tuesday.

Inspector Reid - Did you threaten to drown yourself since this occurrence?

Witness - Yes; but only in a "lark." I went to my cousin's and there two days. My cousin lives in Fuller's court, Drury lane.

Inspector Reid said that the witness kept out of the way purposely, and it was only by searching that they found her.

By the Jury - Neither witness nor deceased was sober when they parted on Bank Holiday night, but they were not drunk. Altogether they were drinking one hour and three quarters.

Detective inspector Reid informed the Court that many persons had come forward, and made statements which, when threshed out, ended unsatisfactorily, and up to the present the police had been unable to secure the guilty party or parties.

The Coroner in summing up said that the crime was one of the most brutal that had occurred for some years. For a poor defenceless woman to be outraged and stabbed in the manner which this woman had been was almost beyond belief. They could only come to one conclusion, and that was that the deceased was brutally and cruelly murdered.

The Jury, after slight deliberation, returned a verdict of Wilful Murder against some person or persons unknown.

SERIAL KILLERS: JACK THE RIPPER: Evening Standard (London) 21 August 1888

ANOTHER MURDER.......

Mr. George Collier held an inquest yesterday at the Poplar Town Hall, into the circumstances attending the death of Elizabeth Bartlett, aged 58, the wife of a general dealer, lately living at 248 Manchester road, Cubitt Town. The body lay in the Poplar Mortuary, and presented a shocking appearance, the head being completely battered in, while the neck bore marks as if an attempt had been made to cut her throat.

Great excitement prevailed in the district, and the precincts of the Town Hall were crowded with the general public, who, owing to the court being small, were not admitted to heard the evidence.

Mrs. Emma Mears, of 290 Manchester road, stated that she was the sister of the deceased, whom she last saw alive at a quarter to twelve on Saturday forenoon. She was complaining of a bad throat, and said to witness, "I must prepare for death, for I know I shall be choked one of these times." She had been ill for some time. On the following day a boy, who worked for the husband of the deceased, who went by the name of Freeman, came to her house, and said, "Hurry up, hurry up; Freeman has bashed his wife's head in with a hammer and cut his own throat." Witness went at once to the house, and found her sister lying on the bed. There was a doctor and four policemen at the bedside. The doctor's name was Smyth, and he attended to her, but she died in half an hour. The husband was lying on the bed with his throat cut and bleeding. Both were unconscious. The doctor strapped his throat up, and he was taken to the hospital. Deceased and her husband were continually quarrelling when the latter was in drink. He was very often violent, and witness had seen him strike her often. When he was sober he was a good husband, but the drink made him mad. Witness saw her sister constantly, and she continually complained of his conduct towards her. Witness had heard him say that he would cut her head off and throw her out into the street. That was when he was drunk. She never heard him say so when he was sober. Deceased was a most sober woman.

The Coroner: Have you seen her strike him? - Witness: Yes, in self defence only; not otherwise.

The Coroner: She was a fine woman, and looked able to have taken her own part.

Witness continuing, said hr sister was generally of a quiet disposition, and would not quarrel without a cause.

the Coroner: Do you know if she was legally married to him? - Yes, sir.

The marriage certificate was here handed to the Coroner, who remarked that it appeared all right.

By the Jury - They lived together as man and wife some years before they were married. They have been married 14 or 15 years but have lived together for 20 years.

The Coroner said there could be no moral doubt as to who inflicted the injuries, but it was necessary to prove them, and under these circumstances it was necessary to adjourn the inquiry for the police to get up the evidence.

The inquiry was then adjourned for a fortnight.

SERIAL KILLERS: JACK THE RIPPER: Evening Standard (London) 10 August 1888

Mr. George Collier opened an inquest yesterday at Whitechapel, on the body of Martha Turner, 35, a single woman, lately living at 4 Star place, Commercial road, who was found lying on the landing of George yard buildings on Tuesday morning last, with over twenty stabs about her person. Previous to calling the first witness the Coroner said the body had been identified that morning, but he had just been informed that two other persons also identified her as quite a different person, and under those circumstances he thought the question of identity had better be left till the last.

Alfred Geo. Crow, a cabdriver, of 35 George yard buildings, stated that on Tuesday morning he returned home from work at half past three. On his way upstairs he saw somebody lying on the first landing. It was not an unusual thing to see, and he passed on and went to bed. He did not know whether the person was dead or alive when he passed.

John Saunders Reeves, 37 George yard buildings, a waterside labourer, said that on Tuesday morning he left home at five o'clock to go in search of work. On the first floor landing he saw a woman lying in a pool of blood. She was on her back, and seemed dead. He at once gave notice to the police. The woman was a perfect stranger to witness. Her clothes were all disarranged, as if she had had a struggle with someone. Witness did not notice any instrument lying about.

Police Constable Barrett, 226H, deposed to being called by the last witness to view the body of the woman. She was lying on her back, and before she was moved a doctor was sent for, and on arrival he pronounced life extinct. The woman's hands were clenched, but did not contain anything. Her clothes were thrown upwards from the skirt of the dress.

Dr. T.R. Keleene (sic), 28 Brick lane, stated that he was called to the deceased, and found her dead. He examined the body and found 39 punctured wounds on the body and legs. There were no less than nine in the throat and 17 in the breast. She appeared to have been dead about three hours. The body was well nourished. There was a deep wound in the breast from some long, strong instrument, while most of the others were done apparently by a penknife. The large wound could be caused by a sword bayonet or dagger. It was impossible for the whole of the wounds to be self inflicted. Death was due to loss of blood consequent on the injuries.

The inquiry was adjourned.

SERIAL KILLERS: JACK THE RIPPER: Evening Standard (London) 8 August 1888

About ten minutes to five o'clock, yesterday morning, as John Reeves, who lives in George yard buildings, Whitechapel, was coming downstairs to go to work, he discovered the body of a woman lying in a pool of blood on the first floor landing. He called in Constable Barret, 26H, and Dr. Keeling, of Brick lane, promptly arrived, and pronounced life extinct, giving as his opinion that the woman had been brutally murdered, there being knife wounds on her breast, stomach, and abdomen. The body, which was that of a woman apparently between 35 and 40 years of age, about 5ft 3in in height, complexion and hair dark, wore a dark green skirt, a brown petticoat, a long black jacket, and a black bonnet. The woman is unknown to any of the occupants of the tenements, and no disturbance of any kind was heard during the night. The circumstances of the death are therefore mysterious. The body was removed to Whitechapel mortuary, and Inspector Elliston, of the Commercial street Police Station, has placed the case in the hands of Inspector Reid, of the Criminal Investigation Department.

SERIAL KILLERS: JACK THE RIPPER: The Daily Telegraph TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1888

THE ENQUIRY CONTINUES

Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, the coroner for South-East Middlesex, yesterday resumed his inquiry at the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel-road, into the circumstances attending the death of the woman Mary Ann Nicholls, who was discovered lying dead on the pavement in Buck's-row, Baker's-row, Whitechapel, early on Friday morning last.

Inspectors Helston and Aberline attended for the police; whilst Detective-sergeant Enright, of Scotland-year, was also in attendance.

Inspector John Spratling, J Division, deposed that he first heard of the murder about half-past four on Friday morning, while he was in Hackney-road. He proceeded to Buck's-row, where he saw Police-constable Thain, who showed him the place where the deceased had been found. He noticed a blood stain on the footpath. The body of deceased had been removed to the mortuary in Old Montague-street, where witness had an opportunity of preparing a description. The skin presented the appearance of not having been washed for some time previous to the murder. On his arrival Dr. Llewellyn made an examination of the body which lasted about ten minutes. Witness said he next saw the body when it was stripped.

Detective-sergeant Enright: That was done by two of the workhouse officials.

The Coroner: Had they any authority to strip the body?

Witness: No, sir; I gave them no instructions to strip it. In fact, I told them to leave it as it was.

The Coroner: I don't object to their stripping the body, but we ought to have evidence about the clothes.

Sergeant Enright, continuing, said the clothes, which were lying in a heap in the yard, consisted of a reddish-brown ulster, with seven large brass buttons, and a brown dress, which looked new. There were also a woollen and a flannel petticoat, belonging to the workhouse. Inspector Helson had cut out pieces marked "P. R., Princes-road," with a view to tracing the body. There was also a pair of stays, in fairly good condition, but witness did not notice how they were adjusted.

The Coroner said he considered it important to know the exact state in which the stays were found.

On the suggestion of Inspector Aberline, the clothes were sent for.

The Foreman of the jury asked whether the stays were fastened on the body.

Inspector Spratling replied that he could not say for certain. There was blood on the upper part of the dress body, and also on the ulster, but he only saw a little on the under-linen, and that might have happened after the removal of the body from Buck's-row. The clothes were fastened when he first saw the body. The stays did not fit very tightly, for he was able to see the wounds without unfastening them. About six o'clock that day he made an examination at Buck's-row and Brady-street, which ran across Baker's-row, but he failed to trace any marks of blood. He subsequently examined, in company with Sergeant Godley, the East London and District Railway lines and embankment, and also the Great Eastern Railway yard, without, however, finding any traces. A watchman of the Great Eastern Railway, whose box was fifty or sixty yards from the spot where the body was discovered, heard nothing particular on the night of the murder. Witness also visited half a dozen persons living in the same neighbourhood, none of whom had noticed anything at all suspicious. One of these, Mrs. Purkiss, had not gone to bed at the time the body of deceased was found, and her husband was of opinion that if there had been any screaming in Buck's-row they would have heard it. A Mrs. Green, whose window looked out upon the very spot where the body was discovered, said nothing had attracted her attention on the morning of Friday last.

Replying to a question from one of the jury, witness stated that Constable Neil was the only one whose duty it was to pass through Buck's-row, but another constable passing along Broad-street from time to time would be within hearing distance.

In reply to a juryman, witness said it was his firm belief that the woman had her clothes on at the time she was murdered.

Henry Tomkins, horse-slaughterer, 12, Coventry-street, Bethnal-green, was the next witness. He deposed that he was in the employ of Messrs. Barber, and was working in the slaughterhouse, Winthrop-street, from between eight and nine o'clock on Thursday evening till twenty minutes past four on Friday morning. He and his fellow workmen usually went home upon finishing their work, but on that morning they did not do so. They went to see the dead woman, Police-constable Thain having passed the slaughterhouse at about a quarter-past four, and told them that a murder had been committed in Buck's-row. Two other men, James Mumford and Charles Britten, had been working in the slaughterhouse. He (witness) and Britten left the slaughterhouse for one hour between midnight and one o'clock in the morning, but not afterwards till they went to see the body. The distance from Winthrop-street to Buck's-row was not great.

The Coroner: Is your work noisy?

Witness: No, sir, very quiet.

The Coroner: Was it quiet on Friday morning, say after two o'clock?

Witness: Yes, sir, quite quiet. The gates were open and we heard no cry.

The Coroner: Did anybody come to the slaughterhouse that night?

Witness: Nobody passed except the policeman.

The Coroner: Are there any women about there?

Witness: Oh! I know nothing about them, I don't like 'em.

The Coroner: I did not ask you whether you like them; I ask you whether there were any about that night.

Witness: I did not see any.

The Coroner: Not in Whitechapel-road?

Witness: Oh, yes, there, of all sorts and sizes; its a rough neighbourhood, I can tell you. Witness, in reply to further questions, said the slaughter-house was too far away from the spot where deceased was found for him to have heard if anybody had called for assistance. When he arrived at Buck's-row the doctor and two or three policemen were there. He believed that two other men, whom he did not know, were also there. He waited till the body was taken away, previous to which about a dozen men came up. He heard no statement as to how the deceased came to be in Buck's-row.

The Coroner: Have you read any statement in the newspapers that there were two people, besides the police and the doctor, in Buck's-row, when you arrived?

Witness: I cannot say, sir.

The Coroner: Then you did not see a soul from one o'clock on Friday morning till a quarter-past four, when the policeman passed your slaughterhouse?

Witness: No, sir.

A Juryman: Did you hear any vehicle pass the slaughterhouse? - No, sir.

Would you have heard it if there had been one? - Yes, sir.

Where did you go between twenty minutes past twelve and one o'clock? - I and my mate went to the front of the road.

Is not your usual hour for leaving off work six o'clock in the morning, and not four? - No; it is according to what we have to do. Sometimes it is one time and sometimes another.

What made the constable come and tell you about the murder? - He called for his cape.

Inspector Jos. Helson deposed that he first received information about the murder at a quarter before seven on Friday morning. He afterwards went to the mortuary, where he saw the body with the clothes still on it. The dress was fastened in front, with the exception of a few buttons, the stays, which were attached with clasps, were also fastened. He noticed blood on the hair, and on the collars of the dress and ulster, but not on the back of the skirts. There were no cuts in the clothes, and no indications of any struggle having taken place. The only suspicious mark discovered in the neighbourhood of Buck's-row was in Broad-street, where there was a stain which might have been blood. Witness was of opinion that the body had not been carried to Buck's-row, but that the murder was committed on the spot.

Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body.

Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row. He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement." They both crossed over to the body, and witness took hold of the woman's hands, which were cold and limp. Witness said, "I believe she is dead." He touched her face, which felt warm. The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. Just then they heard a policeman coming. Witness did not notice that her throat was cut, the night being very dark. He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met the last witness, whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on. The other man left witness soon after. Witness had never seen him before.

Replying to the coroner, witness denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row. There was nobody there when he and the other man left. In his opinion deceased looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but he had no idea that there were any serious injuries.

The Coroner: Did the other man tell you who he was?

Witness: No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself.

A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?

Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.

Wm. Nicholls, printer's machinist, Coburg-road, Old Kent-road, said deceased was his wife, but they had lived apart for eight years. He last saw her alive about three years ago, and had not heard from her since. He did not know what she had been doing in the meantime.

A Juryman: It is said that you were summoned by the Lambeth Union for her maintenance, and you pleaded that she was living with another man. Was he the blacksmith whom she had lived with?

Witness: No; it was not the same; it was another man. I had her watched. Witness further deposed that he did not leave his wife, but that she left him of her own accord. She had no occasion for so doing. If it had not been for her drinking habits they would have got on all right together.

Emily Holland, a married woman, living at 18, Thrawl-street, said deceased had stayed at her lodgings for about six weeks, but had not been there during the last ten days or so. About half-past two on Friday morning witness saw deceased walking down Osborne-street, Whitechapel-road. She was alone, and very much the worse for drink. She informed witness that where she had been living they would not allow her to return because she could not pay for her room. Witness persuaded her to go home. She refused, adding that she had earned her lodging money three times that day. She then went along the Whitechapel-road. Witness did not know in what way she obtained a living. She always seemed to her to be a quiet woman, and kept very much to herself. In reply to further questions witness said she had never seen deceased quarrel with anybody. She gave her the impression of being weighed down by some trouble. When she left the witness at the corner of Osborne-street, she said she would soon be back.

Mary Ann Monk was the last witness examined. She deposed to having seen deceased about seven o'clock entering a public-house in the New Kent-road. She had seen her before in the workhouse, and had no knowledge of her means of livelihood.

The inquiry was then adjourned until Sept. 17.

SERIAL KILLERS: JACK THE RIPPER: The Daily Telegraph MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1888

THE ENQUIRY BEGINS

On Saturday Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, the coroner for South-East Middlesex, opened an inquiry at the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel-road, into the circumstances attending the death of a woman supposed to be Mary Ann Nicholls, who was discovered lying dead on the pavement in Buck's-row, Baker's-row, Whitechapel, early on Friday morning. Her throat was cut, and she had other terrible injuries.

Inspector Helston, who has the case in hand, attended, with other officers, on behalf of the Criminal Investigation Department.

Edward Walker deposed: I live at 15, Maidwell-street, Albany-road, Camberwell, and have no occupation. I was a smith when I was at work, but I am not now. I have seen the body in the mortuary, and to the best of my belief it is my daughter; but I have not seen her for three years. I recognise her by her general appearance and by a little mark she has had on her forehead since she was a child. She also had either one or two teeth out, the same as the woman I have just seen. My daughter's name was Mary Ann Nicholls, and she had been married twenty-two years. Her husband's name is William Nicholls, and he is alive. He is a machinist. They have been living apart about seven or eight years. I last heard of her before Easter. She was forty-two years of age.

The Coroner: How did you see her?

Witness: She wrote to me.

The Coroner: Is this letter in her handwriting?

Witness: Yes, that is her writing.

The letter, which was dated April 17, 1888, was read by the Coroner, and referred to a place which the deceased had gone to at Wandsworth.

The Coroner: When did you last see her alive?

Witness: Two years ago last June.

The Coroner: Was she then in a good situation?

Witness: I don't know. I was not on speaking terms with her. She had been living with me three or four years previously, but thought she could better herself, so I let her go.

The Coroner: What did she do after she left you?

Witness: I don't know.

The Coroner: This letter seems to suggest that she was in a decent situation.

Witness: She had only just gone there.

The Coroner: Was she a sober woman?

Witness: Well, at times she drank, and that was why we did not agree.

The Coroner: Was she fast?

Witness: No; I never heard of anything of that sort. She used to go with some young women and men that she knew, but I never heard of anything improper.

The Coroner: Have you any idea what she has been doing lately?

Witness: I have not the slightest idea.

The Coroner: She must have drunk heavily for you to turn her out of doors?

Witness: I never turned her out. She had no need to be like this while I had a home for her.

The Coroner: How is it that she and her husband were not living together?

Witness: When she was confined her husband took on with the young woman who came to nurse her, and they parted, he living with the nurse, by whom he has another family.

The Coroner: Have you any reasonable doubt that this is your daughter?

Witness: No, I have not. I know nothing about her acquaintances, or what she had been doing for a living. I had no idea she was over here in this part of the town. She has had five children, the eldest being twenty-one years old and the youngest eight or nine years. One of them lives with me, and the other four are with their father.

The Coroner: Has she ever lived with anybody since she left her husband?

Witness: I believe she was once stopping with a man in York-street, Walworth. His name was Drew, and he was a smith by trade. He is living there now, I believe. The parish of Lambeth summoned her husband for the keep of the children, but the summons was dismissed, as it was proved that she was then living with another man. I don't know who that man was.

The Coroner: Was she ever in the workhouse?

Witness: Yes, sir; Lambeth Workhouse, in April last, and went from there to a situation at Wandsworth.

By the Jury: The husband resides at Coburg-road, Old Kent-road. I don't know if he knows of her death.

Coroner: Is there anything you know of likely to throw any light upon this affair?

Witness: No; I don't think she had any enemies, she was too good for that.

John Neil, police-constable, 97J, said: Yesterday morning I was proceeding down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady-street. There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previously, and I saw no one then. I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. The gateway was closed. It was about nine or ten feet high, and led to some stables. There were houses from the gateway eastward, and the School Board school occupies the westward. On the opposite side of the road is Essex Wharf. Deceased was lying lengthways along the street, her left hand touching the gate. I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat. She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged. I felt her arm, which was quite warm from the joints upwards. Her eyes were wide open. Her bonnet was off and lying at her side, close to the left hand. I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him. I did not whistle. I said to him, "Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn," and, seeing another constable in Baker's-row, I sent him for the ambulance. The doctor arrived in a very short time. I had, in the meantime, rung the bell at Essex Wharf, and asked if any disturbance had been heard. The reply was "No." Sergeant Kirby came after, and he knocked. The doctor looked at the woman and then said, "Move her to the mortuary. She is dead, and I will make a further examination of her." We placed her on the ambulance, and moved her there. Inspector Spratley came to the mortuary, and while taking a description of the deceased turned up her clothes, and found that she was disembowelled. This had not been noticed by any of them before. On the body was found a piece of comb and a bit of looking-glass. No money was found, but an unmarked white handkerchief was found in her pocket.

The Coroner: Did you notice any blood where she was found?

Witness: There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. It was running from the wound in her neck.

The Coroner: Did you hear any noise that night?

Witness: No; I heard nothing. The farthest I had been that night was just through the Whitechapel-road and up Baker's-row. I was never far away from the spot.

The Coroner: Whitechapel-road is busy in the early morning, I believe. Could anybody have escaped that way?

Witness: Oh yes, sir. I saw a number of women in the main road going home. At that time any one could have got away.

The Coroner: Some one searched the ground, I believe?

Witness: Yes; I examined it while the doctor was being sent for.

Inspector Spratley: I examined the road, sir, in daylight.

A Juryman (to witness): Did you see a trap in the road at all?

Witness: No.

A Juryman: Knowing that the body was warm, did it not strike you that it might just have been laid there, and that the woman was killed elsewhere?

Witness: I examined the road, but did not see the mark of wheels. The first to arrive on the scene after I had discovered the body were two men who work at a slaughterhouse opposite. They said they knew nothing of the affair, and that they had not heard any screams. I had previously seen the men at work. That would be about a quarter-past three, or half an hour before I found the body.

Henry Llewellyn, surgeon, said: On Friday morning I was called to Buck's-row about four o'clock. The constable told me what I was wanted for. On reaching Buck's-row I found the deceased woman lying flat on her back in the pathway, her legs extended. I found she was dead, and that she had severe injuries to her throat. Her hands and wrists were cold, but the body and lower extremities were warm. I examined her chest and felt the heart. It was dark at the time. I believe she had not been dead more than half-an-hour. I am quite certain that the injuries to her neck were not self-inflicted. There was very little blood round the neck. There were no marks of any struggle or of blood, as if the body had been dragged. I told the police to take her to the mortuary, and I would make another examination. About an hour later I was sent for by the Inspector to see the injuries he had discovered on the body. I went, and saw that the abdomen was cut very extensively. I have this morning made a post-mortem examination of the body. I found it to be that of a female about forty or forty-five years. Five of the teeth are missing, and there is a slight laceration of the tongue. On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw. It might have been caused by a blow with the fist or pressure by the thumb. On the left side of the face there was a circular bruise, which also might have been done by the pressure of the fingers. On the left side of the neck, about an inch below the jaw, there was an incision about four inches long and running from a point immediately below the ear. An inch below on the same side, and commencing about an inch in front of it, was a circular incision terminating at a point about three inches below the right jaw. This incision completely severs all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision is about eight inches long. These cuts must have been caused with a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence. No blood at all was found on the breast either of the body or clothes. There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards. All these had been caused by a knife, which had been used violently and been used downwards. The wounds were from left to right, and might have been done by a left-handed person. All the injuries had been done by the same instrument.

The inquiry was adjourned till to-morrow.

Up to a late hour last night the police had no clue whatever to the mystery, and had made no arrests.