#john pizer

Goulston Street Grafitti

After the murders of Elizabeth Stride (Dutfield's Yard, Berner Street, Whitechapel) and Catherine Eddowes (Mitre Square, City of London) in the early morning hours of 30 September 1888, police searched the area near the crime scenes in an effort to locate a suspect, witnesses or evidence. 

Catherine Eddowes' murder

Catherine Eddowes was last seen alive at 1.35 a.m. by three witnesses, Joseph Lawende, Joseph Hyam Levy and Harry Harris, who had just left a club on Duke Street. She was standing talking with a man at the entrance to Church Passage, which led south-west from Duke Street to Mitre Square along the south wall of the Great Synagogue of London. Only Lawende could furnish a description of the man, whom he described as a fair-moustached man wearing a navy jacket, peaked cloth cap, and red scarf. Chief Inspector Donald Swanson intimated in his report that Lawende’s identification of the woman as Eddowes was doubtful. He wrote that Lawende had said that some clothing of the deceased’s that he was shown resembled that of the woman he saw—“which was black … that was the extent of his identity [sic]”. A patrolling policeman, PC James Harvey, walked down Church Passage from Duke Street very shortly afterwards but his beat took him back down Church Passage to Duke Street, without entering the square. Eddowes, then an unidentified victim, was found by policeman PC Edward Watkins, who said that he entered the square at 1:44 a.m, having previously been there at 1:30 a.m.

Even while Metropolitan police investigated the crime scene on Berner street, constables from the City Police were called to the horrifying display in Mitre Square. City Detective Constable Daniel Halse was over by St Botolph's Church when he learnt of the murder at just before 2am. Hurrying to Mitre Square, he gave instructions to the constables present to head off and search the neighbourhood. He and Detective Constable Edward Marriott led canvassing of the area for clues and suspects. DC Halse then set off to make his own search, heading first for Middlesex Street, from which he turned into Wentworth Street, where he stopped to question two men he encountered, both of whom gave him a satisfactory account of their movements, and so he allowed them to continue on their way.

He then passed through Goulston Street at around 2.20am where, having found nothing out of the ordinary, he doubled back and returned to Mitre Square. On arrival, he discovered that the body had been taken to the mortuary in Golden Lane, so he made his way there and, on arrival, he was informed that a fragment of the woman's apron had, apparently, been taken away by her killer.

Discovery

At about 2:55~3 a.m. of September 30th, 1888, Constable Alfred Long of the Metropolitan Police Force found a blood-stained fragment of Catherine’s apron lying in the passage of the doorway leading to Flats 108 and 119, Model Dwellings, Goulston Street, Whitechapel. Above it on the wall was a graffito in white chalk. He copied the words from the wall into his pocket book. After calling a constable (PC 190H) from the adjoining beat, Long made a search of the staircases but found no trace of blood or persons. 

He proceeded to Commercial Street Police Station and reported the discovery of the apron and writing to the Inspector on duty who accompanied him back to Goulston Street. After inspecting the scene, they went to Leman Street Police Station where the Inspector handed over the portion of Eddowes' apron to Dr. George Bagster Phillips. PC Long had, in fact, walked past the same doorway at 2.20am, at more or less the same time that Daniel Halse had also passed through Goulston Street, and, like Halse, he had seen nothing out of the ordinary. Indeed, he was emphatic that he would, most certainly, have noticed had the piece of apron been there then and he was, therefore, sure that it hadn't been. Long was unable to say whether the graffito had been there at that time. Neither could he form any opinion as to whether the writing was recent. 

The exact position of the writing is still uncertain. It is not clear as to whether it was on the left or right hand side of the doorway, or where it was positioned exactly in relation to the discarded piece of apron, save that it was 'above it'. According to DC Halse of the city of London Police the writing was on 'the black facia of the wall' and appeared to have been written recently. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Charles Warren stated that "the writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street..." Chief Inspector Swanson described the writing as being "upon the wall of a common stairs", also claiming that it was blurred. Police Superintendent Thomas Arnold's report suggests that the writing was at shoulder height.

[Copy of graffito in Goulston Street, attached to Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Charles Warren's report to the Home Office on the Whitechapel murders. Wikipedia.]

Versions

There are at least 5 different versions of what was written in the graffito:

PC Long told at an inquest that it read ”The Juwes are the men that Will not be Blamed for nothing“. A copy according with Long’s version of the message was attached to a report from Sir Charles Warren to the Home Office (pictured above).

DC Halse arrived short time later, and took down a different version: “The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing”.

City Surveyor Frederick William Foster recorded a third version: “The Juws are not the men To be blamed for nothing”.

Superintendent Thomas Arnold, who visited the scene and saw the writing, wrote it in his report of 6 November (posted also below) as "The Juews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing".

A summary report on the writing by Chief Inspector Swanson rendered it as “The Jewes are not the men to be blamed for nothing”. However, it is uncertain if Swanson ever saw the writing.

[Sir Charles Warren looking at the graffiti in a contemporary press newspaper. From Jack the ripper.org]

Removal

Soon, officers of the Metropolitan Police were gathering around the doorway and were gazing at the graffito with feelings of great trepidation.

At the time, Whitechapel was home to a growing number of Jewish immigrants from all over Europe. They were viewed with suspicion because of their often socialist political views, as well as from plain old racial prejudice. A notorious murder case had recently taken place in the neighborhood perpetrated by a Jewish man named Israel Lipski, and his name had turned into a slur against Jewish people. Religious tensions were already high, and there had already been many near-riots. Mindful of the strong feelings of anti-Semitism that had surfaced in the area, and realizing that Wentworth Model Dwellings not only stood in a largely Jewish locality, but was also inhabited almost exclusively by Jews, the Metropolitan Police began to fear that if the message was left, it could lead to a resurgence of racial unrest in the district and the consequences could be dire.

While the Goulston Street graffito was found in Metropolitan Police territory, the apron piece was from a victim killed in the City of London, which has a separate police force. Arnold ordered a man to be standing by with a sponge to erase the writing, while he consulted Commissioner Warren. Covering it in order to allow time for a photographer to arrive or removing a portion of it were considered, but Arnold and Warren (who personally attended the scene) considered this to be too dangerous.

The removal of the writing was a contoversial action, in spite of the fact that Inspector James McWilliam, head of the City Police Detective Department, had given an immediate order for it to be photographed. The Metropolitan Police pointed out that that would mean waiting until it was light, by which time gentile purchasers would be arriving in their thousands to purchase from the Jewish stallholders at the Petticoat Lane and Goulston Street Sunday markets. Since there was no way of keeping it hidden from these crowds, the Metropolitan Police were convinced the result might be a full scale riot against the Jews.

Some officers disagreed with Arnold and Warren's decision, especially those representing the City of London Police, like DC Halse, who thought the writing constituted part of a crime scene, but it was wiped from the wall at 5:30 a.m. Even Sir Robert Anderson said that the removal of such an important potential clue was an act of crass stupidity.

Superintendent Arnold, in his report of 6 November 1888 to the Home Office, he claimed, that with the strong feeling against the Jews that already existed, the message might have become the means of causing a riot:

"I beg to report that on the morning of the 30th Sept. last, my attention was called to some writing on the wall of the entrance to some dwellings at No. 108 Goulston Street, Whitechapel which consisted of the following words: "The Juews are not [the word 'not' being deleted] the men that will not be blamed for nothing", and knowing in consequence of suspicion having fallen upon a Jew named 'John Pizer' alias 'Leather Apron' having committed a murder in Hanbury Street a short time previously [Annie Chapman], a strong feeling existed against the Jews generally, and as the Building upon which the writing was found was situated in the midst of a locality inhabited principally by that Sect, I was apprehensive that if the writing were left it would be the means of causing a riot and therefore considered it desirable that it should be removed having in view the fact that it was in such a position that it would have been rubbed by persons passing in & out of the Building. Had only a portion of the writing been removed the context would have remained. An Inspector was present by my directions with a sponge for the purpose of removing the writing when the Commissioner arrived on the scene".

Sir Charles Warren's report of the same day is on similar lines:

" ...it was just getting light, the public would be in the streets in a few minutes, in a neighbourhood very much crowded by Jewish vendors and Christian Purchasers from all parts of London...The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering been torn off at once. A discussion took place whether the writing could be left covered up or otherwise or whether any portion of it could be left for an hour until it could be photographed; but after taking into consideration the excited state of the population in London generally at the time, the strong feeling which had been excited against the Jews, and the fact that in a short time there would be a large concourse of the people in the streets, and having before me the Report that if it was left there the house was likely to be wrecked (in which from my own observation I entirely concurred) I considered it desirable to obliterate the writing at once, having taken a copy of which I enclose a duplicate.

After having been to the scene of the murder, I went on to the City Police Office and informed the Chief Superintendant of the reason why the writing had been obliterated.

I may mention that so great was the feeling with regard to the Jews that on the 13th ulto. the Acting Chief Rabbi wrote to me on the subject of the spelling of the word "Jewes" on account of a newspaper asserting that this was Jewish spelling in the Yiddish dialect. He added "in the present state of excitement it is dangerous to the safety of the poor Jews in the East [End] to allow such an assertion to remain uncontradicted. My community keenly appreciates your humane and vigilant action during this critical time.

It may be realised therefore if the safety of the Jews in Whitechapel could be considered to be jeopardised 13 days after the murder by the question of the spelling of the word Jews, what might have happened to the Jews in that quarter had that writing been left intact.

I do not hesitate myself to say that if that writing had been left there would have have been an onslaught upon the Jews, property would have been wrecked, and lives would probably have been lost; and I was much gratified with the prompitude with which Superintendent Arnold was prepared to act in the matter if I had not been there."

Investigation

The police interviewed all the residents of 108–119 Goulston Street, but were unable to trace either the writer of the graffito or the murderer.

The journey from Mitre Square, where Catherine was murdered, to Goulston Street, where her blood stained piece of apron was found, takes a little under ten minutes at a brisk pace. DC Halse had walked it in twenty or so minutes, and he was on the look out for suspicious looking characters, and had even stopped to question the two men he had encountered en route.

There are, admittedly, several possible routes that the murderer could have taken, but they can all be done at a rapid pace in around ten minutes or less.

If Long and Halse were correct in their assertion that the portion of apron hadn't been there at 2.20am, then the murderer had loitered in the area for anywhere between 35 minutes and an hour, during which time the police were fanning out into the area to search for him, and were stopping and questioning any man they met.

Walter Dew, a detective constable in Whitechapel, tended to think that the writing was irrelevant and unconnected to Catherine's murder, whereas Chief Inspector Henry Moore and Sir Robert Anderson, both from Scotland Yard, thought that the graffito was the work of the murderer. Contemporary police concluded that the text was a semi-literate attack on the area's Jewish population.

Mitre Square had three connecting streets: Church Passage to the north-east, Mitre Street to the south-west, and St James’s Place to the north-west. As in their beats PC Watkins saw no-one from Mitre Street, and PC Harvey saw no-one from Church Passage, the murderer must have left the square northwards through St James’s Place towards Goulston Street. Goulston Street was within a quarter of an hour’s walk from Mitre Square.

[Map showing the location of the graffito (red triangle) in relation to 6 of the murder sites (red circles). Bottom left: Mitre Square (where Catherine Eddowes was found); Bottom right: Berner Street(where Elizabeth Stride was found). Others (clockwise from top): Dorset Street (Mary Jane Kelly), Osborn Street (Emma Elizabeth Smith), George Yard (Martha Tabram), Castle Alley (Alice McKenzie). Wikipedia.]

Theories

To this day, there is no consensus on whether or not the graffito is relevant to the murders. Some modern researchers believe that the apron fragment’s proximity to the graffito was coincidental and it was randomly discarded rather than being placed near it. If, as some writers contend, the apron fragment was cut away by the murderer(s) to use to wipe his hands, he could have discarded it near the body immediately after it had served that purpose, or he could have wiped his hands on it without needing to remove it. 

According to historian Philip Sugden there are at least three permissible interpretations of the graffiti: "All three are feasible, not one capable of proof." The first is that the writing was not the work of the murderer at all: the apron piece was dropped near the writing either incidentally or by design. The second would be to "take the murderer at his word"—a Jew incriminating himself and his people. The third interpretation was, according to Sugden, the one most favoured at the Scotland Yard and by "Old Jewry": The chalk message was a deliberate subterfuge, designed to incriminate the Jews and throw the police off the track of the real murderer.

Author and former homicide detective Trevor Marriott has raised another possibility (2005): the piece of apron may not necessarily have been dropped by the murderer on his way back to the East End from Mitre Square. The victim herself might have used it as a sanitary towel, and dropped it on her way from the East End to Mitre Square. Although Caterine’s cause of death was Haemorrhage due to severance of the left common carotid artery, thus her heart wouldn’t have stopped beating by the time he cut her throat and so he wouldn’t have avoided the arterial spurt that would have resulted in him becoming heavily bloodstained when he cut the carotid artery.

***

TO KNOW MORE

Wikipedia

Casebook Wiki

Casebook dissertation 

Casebook dissertation 'A curious find' 

Casebook Forums

Project Gutenberg Self Publishing Press 

Jack The Ripper.org 

Jack the Ripper tour

Whitechapel Jack 

JTR Forums: Goulston Street

Jack Lo Squartatore (Italian blog)

Red Jack (Italian blog)

BEGG, Paul (2003): Jack the Ripper: The Definitive History.  

EVANS, Stewart P. & RUMBELOW, Donald (2006): Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates. 

EVANS, Stewart P. & SKINNER, Keith (1997, 2001): Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell.

EVANS, Stewart P. & SKINNER, Keith (2000): The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook: An Illustrated Encyclopedia. 

FIDO, Martin (1987). The Crimes, Death and Detection of Jack the Ripper. 

MARRIOTT, Trevor (2005): Jack the Ripper: The 21st Century Investigation.

RUMBELOW, Donald (2004): The Complete Jack the Ripper: Fully Revised and Updated.

“Dark” Annie Chapman

[Previous post]

Last days and murder

Annie was 5’ tall (152 cm), aged 47 at time of her murder, with pallid complexion, blue eyes, dark brown wavy hair, excellent teeth (possibly two missing in lower jaw). She was strongly built (stout) and with a thick nose. She was under-nourished and suffering from a chronic disease of the lungs (tuberculosis) and brain tissue. It is said that she was dying (these could also be symptoms of syphilis). Her friend Amelia Palmer described her as “sober, steady going woman who seldom took any drink.” She was, however, known to have a taste for rum.

On Saturday, September 1, 1888, Edward Stanley returned after having been away since August 6. He met Annie at the corner of Brushfield Street. Sometime close to this date, Annie had a fight with Eliza Cooper. The fight has several different tellings but all revolve around Edward Stanley. An argument broke out in the Britannia Public House between Eliza Cooper and Annie. Also present were Stanley and Harry the Hawker. Cooper was Annie’s rival for the affections of Stanley. Cooper struck her, giving her a black eye and bruising her breast. The cause was given as: Chapman noticed Cooper palming a florin belonging to Harry, who was drunk, and replacing it with a penny. Chapman mentions this to Harry and otherwise calls attention to Cooper’s deceit. Cooper said she struck Annie in the pub on September 2nd. Amelia Palmer said that Annie told her the argument took place at the pub but the fisticuffs took place at the lodging house, later. John Evans, night watchman at the lodging house said the fight broke out in the lodging house on September 6th. Cooper also said that the fight was not over Harry but over soap which Annie had borrowed for the Pensioner and not returned. In one version of the story, Annie is to have thrown a half penny at Cooper and slapped her in the face saying “Think yourself lucky I did not do more.” Donovan stated that on August 30th he noticed she had a black eye. “Tim, this is lovely, aint it.” She was to have said to him. Stanley noticed that she had a black eye on the evening of September 2nd and on the 3rd Annie showed her bruises to Amelia Palmer. Donovan will tell the inquest into her death that she was not at the lodging house during the week prior to her death. So it appears from the bulk of the evidence that the fight took place in the last few days of August and probably in the lodging house.

On Monday, September 3, Annie met Amelia Palmer in Dorset Street. “How did you get that?” asked Palmer, noticing the bruise on her right temple. By way of answer, Annie opened her dress. “Yes,” Annie said “look at my chest.” Annie complained of feeling unwell and said she may go see her sister. “If I can get a pair of boots from my sister,” she said “I may go hop picking.”

The following day, Tuesday, September 4, Amelia Palmer saw Annie again near Christ Church. Chapman again complained she was feeling ill and said she may go the casual ward for a day or two. She said she has had nothing to eat or drink all day. Palmer gave her 2d for tea, and warned her not to spend it on rum.

On the night of Wednesday September 5 to Thursday, September 6th, she was possibly in the casual ward although there are no records to support the assumption. However, following her murder, Donovan found a bottle of medicine in her room.

On Friday, September 7, at around 2:00-3:00 PM Crossingham’s house deputy, Timothy Donovan, permitted Annie to sit in the kitchen, asking where she had been all week. “In the infirmary,“ answered Annie. At 5:00 PM Amelia Palmer saw Annie in Dorset Street. Chapman was sober and Palmer asked her if she was going to Stratford, but Annie said she was too ill to do anything. Farmer left but returned a few minutes later only to find Chapman not having moved. Annie said ”I must pull myself together and go out and get some money or I shall have no lodgings.“ At 11:30 PM Annie returned to the lodging house and asked permission to go into the kitchen.

At 12:10 AM of Saturday, September 8th, Frederick Stevens, also a lodger at Crossingham’s said he drank a pint of beer with Annie. He states that she did not leave the lodging house until 1:00 AM. At 12:12 AM printer William Stevens, another lodger, entered the kitchen and saw Chapman. She said that she had been to Vauxhall to see her sister, that she went to get some money and that her family had given her 5 pence. Annie said she had been to the hospital and would go to the infirmary the next day. She had a bottle of lotion and a bottle of medicine. She took out a box of pills from her pocket, and, upon handling it, the box broke. Annie placed the pills in a torn piece of envelope she found on the floor near the fireplace. Chapman left the kitchen, Stevens thought she had gone to bed.

At 12:30am Frederick Simmons, a fellow lodger, and Annie had a beer. Half an hour later, at 1:00am, Simmons saw Annie leave Crossingham's (#35 Dorset St), believing she went to the Brittannia pub, (located on the north-west corner of Dorset St and Commercial St).

At 1:35 AM Annie returned to the lodging house again. She ate a baked potato. John Evans, the night watchman, had been sent to collect her bed money. She went upstairs to see Timothy Donovan in his office. “I haven’t sufficient money for my bed,” she told him, “but don’t let it. I shall not be long before I’m in.” Donovan chastised her, “You can find money for your beer and you can’t find money for your bed.” Annie was not dismayed. She stepped out of the office and stood in the doorway for two or three minutes. “Never mind, Tim.” she stated, “I’ll soon be back.”And to Evans she said, “I won’t be long, Brummy [his nickname]. See that Tim keeps the bed for me.” Her regular bed in the lodging house was number 29. Evans saw her leave and enter Little Paternoster Row going in the direction of Brushfield Street and then turning towards Spitalfields Market.

At 2:30am Emily Walter was in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street with a man. He was 37; Dark beard and moustache; foreign accent; dark vest and pants; black scarf and felt hat; short dark jacket. Hanbury St curves south-east from Commercial St to the junction of Baker’s Row and Old Montague St. #29 was on the North side of the street, between Wilkes St & Brick Ln. 27 Hanbury St was next door on the West side of #29. 29 Hanbury St, was a 3-story building with residents living on each of the three floors and in the attic with a small business on the ground floor and one working out of the cellar. On the left-hand side of the buildings’ front was two doors: the door on the right led to the shop. The door on the left opened to a passageway containing stairs to the residences and another door leading to the backyard.

#29 was owned by Mrs Amelia Richardson, who ran a packing case business out of the cellar and was assisted by Francis Tyler and her son, John Richardson. A cat’s meat shop was in the ground floor front room and was used by Mrs Harriet Hardyman and her 16 year old son. The ground floor back room was a kitchen. Mrs Richardson and her 14 year old grandson slept in the first floor front room. The first floor back room was occupied by Mr Waker and his adult, retarded son. Mr Thompson, his wife, and their adopted daughter slept in the second floor front room. Two unmarried sisters, Misses Copsey, lived in the second floor back room. Living in the front room of the attic was John Davis with his wife and three sons, and occupying the attic’s back room was Mrs Sarah Cox. The passageway was sometimes occupied by unknown people at unusual hours, and the backyard was frequented by prostitutes. The door to the street was a latch-type, and the door to the yard was self-closing or swing-door. Typically, neither door was locked as a courtesy to the residents. Three small stone steps led to the yard, which was about 14’ x 12’. The yard was part dirt and part paving stone. About 3’ to 3’-6”, left of the doorway, was a 5’-6" high fence made of wooden pailings, separating the yards of #27 & #29. To the right of the doorway, were cellar doors, which led to a workshop. Two feet away, on the right, was a water pump. At the yard’s far left corner was a storage shed, and at the far right corner was a privy.

At 3:00am Davis woke up. Around 3:50am Thompson left for work without going into the back yard. Mrs Richardson, dozing fitfully, heard him pass her room and called out, “Good morning.”

At 4:45 AM Mr. John Richardson entered the backyard of 29 Hanbury St. on his way to work, and sat down on the steps to remove a piece of leather which was protruding from his boot. Although it was quite dark at the time, he was sitting no more than a yard away from where the head of Annie Chapman would have been had she already been killed. He later testified to have seen nothing of extraordinary nature. He left 5 minutes later. At 4:51am dawn broke. At 5:25am the sun rose.

At 5:30 AM, Elizabeth Long saw Chapman with a man, hard against the shutters of 29 Hanbury Street. They are talking. Long heard the man say “Will you?” and Annie replied “Yes.” Long was certain of the time as she had heard the clock on the Black Eagle Brewery, Brick Lane, strike the half hour just as she had turned onto the street. Chapman had her back towards Spitalfields Market and, thus, her face towards Long. The man had his back towards Long. A few moments after the Long sighting, Albert Cadosch, a young carpenter living at 27 Hanbury Street walked into his back yard probably to use the outhouse. Passing the five foot tall wooden fence which separates his yard from that of number 29, he heard voices quite close. The only word he could make out was a woman saying “No!” He then heard something falling against the fence.

Discovery

At 5:45am Davis and his wife got out of bed as the Spitalfields Church clock struck the quarter hour. They had some tea. Ten minutes later, Davis went downstairs, noticing that the passageway door to the street stood wide open, which was not unusual. Davis then opened the other door to enter the backyard and saw Annie’s body, then an unidentified woman.

Annie was lying on her back, parallel with the fence, which was to her left; Her head was about 2’ from the back wall and 6"-9" left of the bottom step; Her legs were bent at the knees; Her feet were flat on the ground, pointing toward the shed; Her dress was pushed above her knees; Her left arm lay across her left breast; Her right arm at her side; The small intestines, still attached by a cord, and part of the abdomen lay above her right shoulder; 2 flaps of skin from the lower abdomen lay in a large quantity of blood above the left shoulder; Her throat was deeply cut in a jagged manner; A neckerchief was around her neck.

Davis immediately left the yard and ran out into the street. James Kent and James Green were standing outside their workshop at 23A Hanbury St, waiting for their fellow workers to arrive when Davis entered the street. “Men! Come here! Here’s a sight. A woman must have been murdered!” shouted Davis to Green and Kent. Henry John Holland was passing by and followed the others to the yard. Only Holland ventured into the yard. All of them then left: Green, apparently, returned to work; Kent did not notice a constable in the area, so he went to his workshop for a brandy while looking for a canvas to put over the body; Holland went to the Spitalfields Market, where he found a constable who was on a fixed point; and, Davis went to the Commercial Street Police Station, to report the finding. Mrs Hardyman woke up to the sound of Davis and the others in the passageway and sent her son to see what was going on. Upon his return, he said, “Don’t upset yourself, mother. It’s a woman been killed in the yard.” Around 6:10am Mrs Richardson went into the passageway after receiving news from her grandson. (Only Annie’s body was in the yard.)

Investigation

Inspector Joseph Luniss Chandler was at the corner of Hanbury St and Commercial St when he saw several men running from Hanbury St. “Another woman has been murdered,” he was told. Some 3 minutes later Insp Chandler arrived at the scene. (A crowd had already begun to gather in the passageway, but no one was in the yard.) He sent for the Divisional Surgeon, Doctor George Bagster Phillips, 2 Spital Square; he sent for an ambulance and reinforcements from the Commercial Street Police Station; he notified Scotland Yard and covered the body with sacking he borrowed from a neighbouring resident. Kent returned to #29 and found that Insp Chandler had taken possession of the backyard and that a crowd had gathered in the passageway near the door. Other constables arrived, and the passageway was cleared. At 6:20am Dr Phillips learned of the body, and arrived upon the scene and began his initial examination 10 minutes later.

Dr. Phillips described the body of Annie Chapman as he saw it at 6:30 AM in the back yard of the house at 29 Hanbury Street. According to him, she was murdered around 4:30am. This is inquest testimony: “The left arm was placed across the left breast. The legs were drawn up, the feet resting on the ground, and the knees turned outwards. The face was swollen and turned on the right side… The tongue was evidently much swollen. The front teeth were perfect as far as the first molar, top and bottom and very fine teeth they were. The body was terribly mutilated…the stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but was evidently commencing… the throat was dissevered deeply;  the incision through the skin were jagged and reached right round the neck…On the wooden paling between the yard in question and the next, smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased lay, were to be seen. These were about 14 inches from the ground, and immediately above the part where the blood from the neck lay… the instrument used at the throat and abdomen was the same. It must have been a very sharp knife with a thin narrow blade, and must have been at least 6 in. to 8 in. in length, probably longer… the injuries could not have been inflicted by a bayonet or a sword bayonet. They could have been done by such an instrument as a medical man used for post-mortem purposes, but the ordinary surgical cases might not contain such an instrument. Those used by the slaughtermen, well ground down, might have caused them… the knives used by those in the leather trade would not be long enough in the blade. There were indications of anatomical knowledge… the deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more; but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood. There was no evidence…of a struggle having taken place… the deceased entered the yard alive… A handkerchief was round the throat of the deceased… it was not tied on after the throat was cut.”

Around.6:40am the ambulance had arrived and Dr Phillips ordered the body to be taken to the Whitechapel Workhouse Infirmary Mortuary in Eagle St off of Old Montague St. As the body was being removed, the contents of Annie’s pocket, which had been cut, were discovered at her feet: A folded piece of coarse muslin, a comb, and a pocket hair comb in a case. (Dr Phillips felt the items were arranged/placed.) Dr Phillips and Insp Chandler then searched the area, finding an envelope piece with the Royal Sussex Regiment crest, the letter “M” in a man’s handwriting, letters “SP,” the number “2,” and the postmark “London, 23 August, 1888” containing the 2 pills laying by her head; A wet leather apron drying on the water tap 2’ from the body; A basin of clean water resting beneath the water tap; 6 spots of blood on the back wall, near where Annie’s head had lain, were located about 18" off the ground and ranged in size from that of six pence to that of a pin point; About 14" off the ground, near the position of Annie’s head, were clotted patches and smears of blood on the pailings of the still-intact fence; No blood stains were found in the passageway, in the rest of the house, in the street, or in the adjoining yards; An empty nail box and a piece of flat steel were found in the yard.

News of the murder had spread, and Sergeant Edward Badham was met by several hundred people as he conveyed the body to the mortuary. Around 7:00am, Sergeant William Thick, Sergeant Leach, and other detectives arrived at Hanbury St. Insp Frederick Abberline was informed of the murder by telegram. At 7:00am Robert Mann received Annie’s body at the mortuary. Around 7:02am Insp Chandler arrived at the mortuary. The body was still on the ambulance, and he took a description of Annie’s clothing. Insp Chandler then left the mortuary, leaving Police Constable Barnes in charge of the body. At 7:10am Sgt Thick arrived at the mortuary and took Annie’s description. Around 7:30am Simmons was taken to the mortuary and immediately recognized Annie, noting that she had on 3 rings when she left the lodging house. Later in the morning Donovan identified the body as Annie Siffey.

It wasn’t until 10:00am that Amelia Palmer read the description of the latest murder victim in the newspaper. She went to a police station, believing she knew the murdered woman. One hour and a half later, she was taken to the mortuary and identified the body as Annie Chapman, (aka Dark Annie). That day, Emmanuel Delbast Violenia of Hanbury St informed police that he had witnessed a man and a woman quarrelling early that morning, and that the man had threatened to stick the woman with a knife. In the afternoon Holland went to the Commercial Street Police Station to report the conduct of the officer at the Spitalfields Market, whom he informed of the murder.

Around 2:00pm Dr Phillips arrived at the mortuary to conduct the post-mortem and found that the body had already been stripped, partially washed, and laid on the table waiting for him. The clothes were tossed into a corner except for the neckerchief which was still around the neck. (The Clerk to the Parish Guardians ordered two nurses, Mary Simonds and Francis Wright, to lay out the body. This was done without police consent.)

Report following the post mortem examination:“…There was a bruise over the right temple. On the upper eyelid there was a bruise, and there were two distinct bruises, each the size of a man’s thumb, on the forepart of the top of the chest. The stiffness of the limbs was now well marked. There was a bruise over the middle part of the bone of the right hand. There was an old scar on the left of the frontal bone. The stiffness was more noticeable on the left side, especially in the fingers, which were partly closed. There was an abrasion over the ring finger, with distinct markings of a ring or rings. The throat had been severed as before described. the incisions into the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side of the neck. There were two distinct clean cuts on the left side of the spine. They were parallel with each other and separated by about half an inch. The muscular structures appeared as though an attempt had made to separate the bones of the neck. There were various other mutilations to the body,… that they occurred subsequent to the death of the woman, and to the large escape of blood from the division of the neck.

The deceased was far advanced in disease of the lungs and membranes of the brain, but they had nothing to do with the cause of death. The stomach contained little food, but there was not any sign of fluid. There was no appearance of the deceased having taken alcohol, but there were signs of great deprivation… she had been badly fed… The injuries were certainly not self-inflicted. The bruises on the face were evidently recent, especially about the chin and side of the jaw, but the bruises in front of the chest and temple were of longer standing - probably of days… the person who cut the deceased throat took hold of her by the chin, and then commenced the incision from left to right… it was highly probable that a person could call out, but with regard to an idea that she might have been gagged he could only point to the swollen face and the protruding tongue, both of which were signs of suffocation.

The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore must have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more… the instrument, like the one which divided the neck, had been of a very sharp character. The mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge.

He… himself could not have performed all the injuries he described, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If he had down it in a deliberate way such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon it probably would have taken him the best part of an hour.”

About 2:30pm Edward Stanley, having heard from a shoeblack that Annie had been murdered, turned up at Crossingham’s. Upon verification of the story, he left without another word. That night Albert Cadosch informed the police of what he knew after he returned from work.

The following day, Sunday September 9th, Annie’s brother, Fountain Hamilton Smith, identified the body as that of his sister. On Monday September 10th,  c8:00am John Pizer was taken into custody at his Mulberry St home by Sgt Thick and several other officers. “You are just the man I want,” said Sgt Thick, who thought Pizer and “Leather Apron” (and the murderer) were all the same person. “Mother, he has got me,” replied Pizer. Pizer was then taken to the Leman Street Police Station. That same day, at 10:00am it was the first day of the Chapman inquest, conducted by Coroner Wynne Edwin Baxter at the Working Lad’s Institute. The jury viewed the corpse at the mortuary in Montague St. The inquest adjourned until Wednesday, September 12th.

The following day, Tuesday September 11th, at 1:00pm Emmanuel Delbast Violenia was taken to the Leman Street Police Station to view a line-up of twelve, predominantly Jewish, men. From which, he “unhesitatingly identified” Pizer as Leather Apron and as the man he had seen quarrelling with a woman on the morning of Annie’s death, but at 8:00pm Violenia was reprimanded for wasting the police’s time when, after 3 hours of continued questioning, Violenia contradicted himself “over and over again” and seemed too anxious to view the corpse, convincing the police that Violenia had fabricated the story in order to see the body. Around c.9:30pm Pizer was released from Custody. On Wednesday September 12th, Mrs Long made her statement to the police and identified Annie’s body as the woman she had seen. The inquest was resumed on its thirds day on September 13th.

Annie Chapman was buried on Friday, 14 September, 1888. At 7:00am, a hearse, supplied by a Hanbury Street Undertaker, H. Smith, went to the Whitechapel Mortuary. Annie’s body was placed in a black-draped elm coffin and was then driven to Harry Hawes, a Spitalfields Undertaker who arranged the funeral, at 19 Hunt Street. At 9:00am, the hearse (without mourning coaches) took Annie’s body to City of London Cemetery (Little Ilford) at Manor Park Cemetery, Sebert Road, Forest Gate, London, E12, where she was buried at (public) grave 78, square 148. Annie’s relatives, who paid for the funeral, met the hearse at the cemetery, and, by request, kept the funeral a secret and were the only ones to attend. The black-covered elm coffin bore the words “Annie Chapman, died Sept. 8, 1888, aged 48 years.”  

On September 19th it took place the 4th day of Annie’s inquest. Wednesday September 26th, 1888 was the last day of her inquest. Baxter summarised the case, saying: “…the uterus has been removed. The body has not been dissected, but the injuries have been made by some one who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. There are no meaningless cuts. It was done by one who knew where to find what he wanted, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife, so as to abstract the organ without injury to it. No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have recognised it when it was found. For instance, no mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations. It must have been some one accustomed to the post-mortem room… I must mention a fact which at the same time proves the assistance which publicity and the newspaper press afford in the detection of crime. Within a few hours of the issue of the morning papers containing a report of the medical evidence given at the last sitting of the Court, I received a communication from an officer of one of our great medical schools, that they had information which might or might not have a distinct bearing on our inquiry. I attended at the first opportunity, and was told by the sub-curator of the Pathological Museum that some months ago an American had called on him, and asked him to procure a number of specimens of the organ that was missing in the deceased. He stated his willingness to give œ20 for each, and explained that his object was to issue an actual specimen with each copy of a publication on which he was then engaged. Although he was told that his wish was impossible to be complied with, he still urged his request. He desired them preserved, not in spirits of wine, the usual medium, but in glycerine, in order to preserve them in a flaccid condition, and he wished them sent to America direct. It is known that this request was repeated to another institution of a similar character. Now, is it not possible that the knowledge of this demand may have incited some abandoned wretch to possess himself of a specimen. It seems beyond belief that such inhuman wickedness could enter into the mind of any man, but unfortunately our criminal annals prove that every crime is possible… His anatomical skill carries him out of the category of a common criminal, for his knowledge could only have been obtained by assisting at post-mortems, or by frequenting the post-mortem room. Thus the class in which search must be made, although a large one, is limited…” A verdict of wilful murder against a person or persons unknown was entered.

Aftermath

On Saturday October 6th, the British Medical Journal published the following report in response to Baxter’s summation: “It is true that enquiries were made at one or two medical schools early last year by a foreign physician, who was “spending some time in London, as to the possibility of securing certain parts of the body for the purpose of scientific investigation.” No large sum, however, was offered. The person in question was a physician of the highest reputability and exceedingly well accredited to this country by the best authorities in his own, and he left London fully 18 months ago. There was never any real foundation for the hypothesis, and the information communicated, which was not at all of the nature the public has been led to believe, was due to the erroneous interpretation by a minor official of a question which he had overheard and to which a negative reply was given. This theory may be dismissed, and is, we believe, no longer entertained by its author.”

Chapman’s grave no longer exists; it has since been buried over.

Photos: Whitechapel Murders Wordpress, Jack the Ripper Tour, Whitechapel Jack & Retrocards

***

To know more:

ACKROYD, Peter et al. (2008): Jack the Ripper and the East End. 

ALEXANDER, G. (2015): Jack The Ripper: Case Solved?

BEGG, Paul (2003): Jack the Ripper: The Definitive History.  

BEGG, Paul (2013): Jack The Ripper. The Facts. 

BEGG, Paul; FIDO, Martin & SKINNER, Keith (1996): The Jack The Ripper A – Z. The Ultimate Guide to the Ripper Mystery. 

CHISHOLM, Alexander; DiGRAZIA, Christopher-Michael & YOST, Dave (2002): The News from Whitechapel: Jack the Ripper in the “Daily Telegraph”. 

CULLEN, Tom (1965): Autumn of Terror: Jack the Ripper, his crimes and times. 

EDDLESTON, John J. (2001): Jack the Ripper: An Encyclopedia. 

EVANS, Stewart P. & RUMBELOW, Donald (2006): Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates.  EVANS, Stewart P. & SKINNER, Keith (2000): The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook: An Illustrated Encyclopedia. 

FROST, Rebecca (2018): The Ripper’s Victims in Print. The Rethoric Portrayals Since 1929. 

HINTON, Bob (1998): From Hell. Jack the Ripper Mistery. 

HODGSON, Peter (2011): Jack the Ripper. Through the Mists of Time. 

HUME, Robert (2019): The hidden lives of Jack the Ripper’s victims. 

JAKUBOWSKI, Maxim & BRAUND, Nathan (1999): The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper. 

JONES, Richard (2008): Jack the Ripper. The Casebook. 

MAGELLAN, Karyo (2005): By Ear and Eyes: The Witechapel Murders, Jack the Ripper and the Murder of Mary Kelly.

MARRIOTT, Trevor (2005): Jack the Ripper: The 21st Century Investigation.  MATTHEWS, Rupert (2013): Jack the Ripper’s Street of Terror: Life during the reign of Victorian London’s most brutal killer. 

PRIESTLEY, Mick P. (2018): One Autumn in Whitechapel. 

RANDALL, Anthony J. (2013): Jack the Ripper. Blood lines. 

RUBENHOLD, Hallie (2019): The Untold Lives of the Women killed by Jack the Ripper / The Lives of Jack the Ripper’s Women. 

RUMBELOW, Donald (1975): Jack The Ripper: The Complete Casebook.

RUMBELOW, Donald (2004): The Complete Jack the Ripper: Fully Revised and Updated. 

SHELDEN, Neal E. (2013): Mary Jane Kelly and the Victims of Jack the Ripper: The 125th Anniversary. 

SHELDEN STUBBINGS, Neal (2017): The Victims of Jack the Ripper. 

SKINNER, Keith & EVANS, Stewart P. (2000): The Ultimate Jack The Ripper Sourcebook. 

SUGDEN, Philip (1994, 2002): The Complete History of Jack the Ripper. 

TROW, Meirion James (2009): Jack the Ripper: Quest for a Killer.  TROW, Meirion James (2012): Hunting Jack: Abberline and the Whitechapel murders. 

WHITEHEAD, Mark; RIVETT, Miriam (2006): Jack the Ripper. 

WHITTINGTON-EGAN, Richard (1975, 2015): Jack the Ripper. The definitive Casebook.  WOOD, Simon Daryl (2015): Deconstructing Jack: The Secret History of the Whitechapel Murders. 

Wikipedia

Casebook - Annie Chapman

(Wiki) Casebook - Annie Chapman

Casebook - Annie Chapman’s timeline

Casebook - Annie Chapman’s inquest transcription

Casebook - Annie Chapman’s messages forum

Casebook - Annie Chapman’s discussion forum

Find a Grave

JTR Forums - Annie Chapman

Jack the Ripper 1888 - Annie Chapman

Jack the Ripper 1888 - The Murder of Annie Chapman

Ripper Vision - Annie Chapman

Jack the Ripper Tour - Hanbury Street

Jack the Ripper Tour - RIP Annie Chapman

Whitechapel Jack - Annie Chapman

Jack The Ripper - Annie Chapman

Jack the Ripper map - Annie Chapman

The Jack the Ripper Tour - Annie Chapman

The Jack the Ripper wakl - Annie Chapman