Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files

by Marriott, Trevor

  “There was a stab of about an inch on the left groin. This was done by a pointed instrument. Below this was a cut of three inches going through all tissues making a wound of the peritoneum about the same extent.

  “An inch below the crease of the thigh was a cut extending from the anterior spine of the ilium obliquely down the inner side of the left thigh and separating the left labium, forming a flap of skin up to the groin. The left rectus muscle was not detached.

  “There was a flap of skin formed by the right thigh, attaching the right labium, and extending up to the spine of the ilium. The muscles on the right side inserted into the frontal ligaments were cut through.

  “The skin was retracted through the whole of the cut through the abdomen, but the vessels were not clotted. Nor had there been any appreciable bleeding from the vessels. I draw the conclusion that the act was made after death, and there would not have been much blood on the murderer. The cut was made by someone on the right side of the body, kneeling below the middle of the body.

  “I removed the content of the stomach and placed it in a jar for further examination. There seemed very little in it in the way of food or fluid, but from the cut end partly digested farinaceous food escaped.

  “The intestines had been detached to a large extent from the mesentery. About two feet of the colon was cut away. The sigmoid flexure was invaginated into the rectum very tightly. Right kidney was pale, bloodless with slight congestion of the base of the pyramids.

  “There was a cut from the upper part of the slit on the under surface of the liver to the left side, and another cut at right angles to this, which were about an inch and a half deep and two and a half inches long. Liver itself was healthy.

  “The gall bladder contained bile. The pancreas was cut, but not through, on the left side of the spinal column. Three and a half inches of the lower border of the spleen by half an inch was attached only to the peritoneum.

  “The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed. The left renal artery was cut through. I would say that someone who knew the position of the kidney must have done it.

  “The lining membrane over the uterus was cut through. The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump of three quarters of an inch. The rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments. The vagina and cervix of the womb was uninjured.

  “The bladder was healthy and uninjured, and contained three or four ounces of water. There was a tongue-like cut through the anterior wall of the abdominal aorta. The other organs were healthy. There were no indications of connexion. I believe the wound in the throat was first inflicted. I believe she must have been lying on the ground.

  “The wounds on the face and abdomen prove that they were inflicted by a sharp, pointed knife and that in the abdomen by one six inches or longer.

  “I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed. The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose.

  “I think the perpetrator of this act had sufficient time, or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids. It would take at least five minutes. I cannot assign any reason for the parts being taken away. I feel sure that there was no struggle, and believe it was the act of one person.

  “The throat had been so instantly severed that no noise could have been emitted. I should not expect much blood to have been found on the person who had inflicted these wounds. The wounds could not have been self-inflicted.

  “My attention was called to the apron, particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin. I have seen the portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It is impossible to say that it is human blood on the apron. I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it (which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have), the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding. Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street.”

  Dr. Brown was later recalled to give further medical evidence:

  “I am surgeon to the City of London Police. I was called shortly after two o’clock on Sunday morning, and reached the place of the murder about twenty minutes past two. My attention was directed to the body of the deceased. It was lying in the position described by Watkins, on its back, the head turned to the left shoulder, the arms by the side of the body, as if they had fallen there. Both palms were upwards, the fingers slightly bent. A thimble was lying near. The clothes were thrown up. The bonnet was at the back of the head. There was great disfigurement of the face. The throat was cut across. Below the cut was a neckerchief. The upper part of the dress had been torn open. The body had been mutilated, and was quite warm – no rigor mortis. The crime must have been committed within half an hour or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body. There were no stains of blood on the bricks or pavement around…

  “Before we removed the body Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds, he having been engaged in a case of a similar kind previously. He saw the body at the mortuary. The clothes were removed from the deceased carefully. I made a post-mortem examination on Sunday afternoon. There was a bruise on the back of the left hand, and one on the right shin, but this had nothing to do with the crime. There were no bruises on the elbows or the back of the head. The face was very much mutilated, the eyelids, the nose, the jaw, the cheeks, the lips, and the mouth all bore cuts. There were abrasions under the left ear. The throat was cut across to the extent of six or seven inches.”

  Coroner: Can you tell us what was the cause of death?

  Dr. Brown: The cause of death was haemorrhage from the throat. Death must have been immediate.

  Coroner: There were other wounds on the lower part of the body?

  Dr. Brown: Yes; deep wounds, which were inflicted after death.

  Coroner: I understand that you found certain portions of the body removed?

  Dr. Brown: Yes. The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out. Both these organs were absent, and have not been found.

  Coroner: Have you any opinion as to what position the woman was in when the wounds were inflicted?

  Dr. Brown: In my opinion the woman must have been lying down. The way in which the kidney was cut out showed that it was done by somebody who knew what he was about.

  Coroner: Does the nature of the wounds lead you to any conclusion as to the instrument that was used?

  Dr. Brown: It must have been a sharp-pointed knife, and I should say at least 6 inches long.

  Coroner: Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill?

  Dr. Brown: He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.

  Coroner: Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes?

  Dr. Brown: None whatever.

  Coroner: Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge?

  Dr. Brown: It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.

  Coroner: Would such knowledge be likely to be possessed by someone accustomed to cutting up animals?

  Dr. Brown: Yes.

  Coroner: Have you been able to form any opinion as to whether the perpetrator of this act was disturbed?

  Dr. Brown: I think he had sufficient time, but it was in all probability done in a hurry.

  Coroner: How long would it take to make the wounds?

  Dr. Brown: It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.

  Coroner: Can you, as a professional man,
ascribe any reason for the taking away of the parts you have mentioned?

  Dr. Brown: I cannot give any reason whatever.

  Coroner: Have you any doubt in your own mind whether there was a struggle?

  Dr. Brown: I feel sure there was no struggle. I see no reason to doubt that it was the work of one man.

  Coroner: Would any noise be heard, do you think?

  Dr. Brown: I presume the throat was instantly severed, in which case there would not be time to emit any sound.

  Coroner: Does it surprise you that no sound was heard?

  Dr. Brown: No.

  Coroner: Would you expect to find much blood on the person inflicting these wounds?

  Dr. Brown: No, I should not. I would say that the abdominal wounds were inflicted by a person kneeling at the right side of the body. The wounds could not possibly have been self-inflicted.

  Coroner: Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston Street?

  Dr. Brown: Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

  Coroner: Have you formed any opinion as to the motive for the mutilation of the face?

  Dr. Brown: It was to disfigure the corpse, I should imagine.

  A juror: Was there any evidence of a drug having been used?

  Dr. Brown: I have not examined the stomach as to that. The contents of the stomach have been preserved for analysis…

  Pc Long who discovered the graffiti and the apron piece was then called his testimony was:

  “I was on duty in Goulston-street, Whitechapel, on Sunday morning, Sept. 30th, and about five minutes to three o'clock I found a portion of a white apron (produced). There were recent stains of blood on it. The apron was lying in the passage leading to the staircase of Nos. 106 to 119, a model dwelling house. Above on the wall was written in chalk, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." I at once searched the staircase and areas of the building, but did not find anything else. I took the apron to Commercial-road Police-station and reported to the inspector on duty.”

  Coroner: Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron?

  Long: I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.

  Coroner: Are you able to say whether the apron was there then?

  Long: It was not.

  Coroner: As to the writing on the wall, have you not put a "not" in the wrong place? Were not the words, "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing"?

  Long: I believe the words were as I have stated.

  Coroner: Was not the word "Jews" spelt "Juwes?"

  Long: It may have been.

  Coroner: Yet you did not tell us that in the first place. Did you make an entry of the words at the time?

  Long: Yes, in my pocketbook.

  Coroner: Is it possible that you have put the "not" in the wrong place?

  Long: It is possible, but I do not think that I have.

  Coroner: Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? –

  Long: The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.

  Coroner: How came you to observe the writing on the wall?

  Long: I saw it while trying to discover whether there were any marks of blood about.

  Coroner: Did the writing appear to have been recently done? - I could not form an opinion.

  Coroner: Do I understand that you made a search in the model dwelling house?

  Long: I went into the staircases.

  Coroner: Did you not make inquiries in the house itself?

  Long: No.

  As with the murders of Annie Chapman and Polly Nichols there are many similarities, which suggest all three were killed by the same hand. Having carefully reviewed all the facts surrounding the murder of Eddowes there are many issues which I would now suggest cast a major doubt about some of the previously accepted theories surrounding not only this murder and the murder of Chapman and Nichols, but all of the victims discussed up until now and those I will discuss later.

  The post-mortem, which did not take place till twelve hours later, revealed that her kidney and uterus had been removed. The doctors at the crime scene found no evidence of any organs having been removed. Serious questions must now be asked as to whether the killer did actually remove those organs as has been suggested or whether there is a more plausible explanation, which would also relate to the removal of the uterus from Chapman.

  I first looked closely at the times relative to the murder of Eddowes. Pc Watkins who found the body stated that he was in Mitre Square at 1.30am and saw or heard nothing. He stated he had his police lantern illuminated. He returned to the square at 1.44am. Fourteen minutes later and found the mutilated body of Eddowes in what was described as the darkest part of the square. At that time he saw or heard nothing.

  A number of witnesses who had left a nearby club at 1.35am state they saw a female fitting the description of Eddowes talking with a male outside the entrance to Mitre Square at Church Passage, which is the entrance and exit furthest away from the entrance and exit from which Pc Watkins was using. If those witnesses are correct and they did see Eddowes with her killer, then that only leaves a nine-minute window before Pc Watkins returned. If Pc Harvey is correct then that time is foreshortened because he stated he went as far as Mitre Square at 1.40am. So in effect that only leaves approximately five minutes for the killer to carry out the murder and the mutilations and allegedly remove two vital organs with medical precision in almost total darkness.

  As with the murder of Chapman we have a killer who goes with a prostitute to a dark and secluded location and kills and mutilates the body. The suggestion is then that with anatomical knowledge using what was described as a six-inch long bladed knife proceeds to remove a kidney and uterus. If organ harvesting was the motive for the murders then as I said previously, why mutilate the abdomen in such a way as to inhibit the removal of any organs? The same can be said for the suggestion that the organs were taken away as trophies.

  The other important issue to consider is the time factor. Would the killer have been able to work within the five-minute time window?

  From my limited medical knowledge I am aware that the kidney is a difficult organ to locate. It is to be found encased in renal fat. In the case of Eddowes it was her left kidney. I am reliably informed that a quick removal technique for the kidney would have been to locate the renal fat, take hold of it and simply tear it out. In this case that was not done. I therefore did not believe it possible for the killer to have removed the organs given the time, the location, and the light available to him to be able to effect such removals with some precision as is described.

  I have no doubt that the organs from both Eddowes and Chapman were removed by someone with some anatomical knowledge, which is the conclusion the doctors came to. The question is where were they removed and by whom? I believe the answer is quite simple.

  In 1888 medical sciences were less advanced than they are now and many areas of medicine were still being investigated. This research would have called for the use of organs and body parts, which had been for many years very difficult to acquire by conventional means. As a result in 1832 The Anatomy Act was passed allowing bona fide medical personnel, i.e. doctors, medical students, anatomists to go to mortuaries and freely obtain organs and in some cases a complete body for medical research.

  Following the inquest of Chapman where it was disclosed that a mystery American had been looking to pay to acquire a uterus, it was therefore suggested that this could be the motive for her murder. The Pall Mall Gazette published a letter, which was obviously from someone within the medical profession the letter read:

  “The only practical thing to be done is to keep a sharp lookout and to dismiss once for all the Coroner’s theory as to the motive of the murder. The Coroner seems to have been the innocent victim of a stupid hoax. If he had made enquiries of the sub curator of the p
athological museum he would have discovered that the figure named is a quite preposterous and impossible price for the missing portion of the human body. It is best to get the plain facts plainly forth, and the following letter of prices current containing latest quotations for various parts of the human body suffices. The following are the prices, which we are paying at present for anatomical subjects.

  For one corpse complete £3.5shillings

  For one thorax 5 shillings

  For one arm, one leg, one head and neck, and one abdomen 15 shillings

  “The prices refer to pickled dissecting room subjects. The organ removed by the murderer can be had for the asking at any post-mortem room 12 hours after death. This being so, what comes of the Coroner’s theory that the murders were committed in order to secure the bonus of £20 offered by the mythical American in question?

  In the light of this it would be wrong to rule out the fact that the organs of Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes were expertly removed, not at the crime scenes by the murderer but after the bodies had been taken to the mortuary and before the post-mortems were carried out.

  It is fact that both bodies were taken and left for many hours and left unattended before the doctors returned to conduct the post-mortems. It is also a fact that every morning there would be a constant stream of medical personnel who would visit the mortuaries seeking out specimens to take away for research.

  By law of course the bodies of the victims should not have been touched or tampered with before the post-mortems, but in a mortuary containing many bodies some inside and some outside, it would not have been too difficult for someone with medical knowledge to quickly remove these organs, or to even perhaps pay the poor mortuary keeper to turn a blind eye in order to do so.