The statement of Hutchinson has raised a doubt amongst researchers for many years. Was he there or did he make it up, and if he did make it up for what purpose? There are a number of different ways of looking at Hutchinson and his statement. The first was why it took him so long to come forward with his statement. Was he afraid that the police might think he was the killer? If that were the case then why bother to come forward at all? It could be that he was telling the truth about what he saw, and remarkable as it may seem, gave us the best eyewitness description we have of Jack the Ripper.
The second way is that he was in fact telling the truth, but his statement was exaggerated to please the press and the police. The third, which I don’t believe for one moment is that he lied and was in fact himself her killer.
He noticed the man was well dressed and looked wealthy and hung around waiting for the man to appear on his own, was that with the intention of robbing him? Perhaps the reason he hung around so long was that it was Mary Kelly he was keeping an eye on, and was besotted with her, possibly even stalking her. She had previously said to friends that she was frightened of someone other than the Ripper, though did not say who.
He could have had nowhere else to go and hung around for so long because he had no money for a bed and was just passing time. He had told Kelly that he had spent all his money going down to Romford.
After his initial disclosure to the police Hutchinson elaborated on his statement in a little more detail to the press, saying that his suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well dressed, though had no suspicion the man was the murderer. He stated that he reported what he had seen on Sunday morning to a policeman. This fact has never been proved.
Despite Hutchinson claiming to harbour no suspicion against the man, and maintaining his curiosity was aroused by seeing such a well dressed individual in the area, he immediately contradicts this statement by saying, “I believe he lives in the area”.
Other reasons why his statement may be false are that he described, amongst other things, the colour of the suspect’s eyelashes and the colour of the stone on the watch chain the man was wearing. All of these things would be very difficult to see in poor lighting conditions.
In an effort to prove or disprove his story I carried out a controlled experiment using three different coloured pendants. I used a volunteer to wear each one separately in poor lighting conditions and asked the volunteer to walk past me. I was unable to distinguish the different colours, all dark colours i.e. red and blue and black, all looked the same under my controlled lighting test. So I would say that Hutchinson’s statement in its entirety should not be relied upon. I also believe the police also had their doubts but due to the fact their investigation up until that time had proved negative they had no choice other than to initially accept and act upon his statement.
In his original statement to the police, Hutchinson described the man he had seen as, “Jewish in appearance”, this was later changed to, “looked like a foreigner”, in an attempt to avoid stirring up any anti-Jewish feelings, as hostility and anger against the local Jewish population was already running high.
Hutchinson was paid the equivalent of a month’s wages by the police for his help in searching for his Ripper suspect; he was also paid by the press for his story. Could this be the real reason why he was so keen to help and perhaps why he elaborated on his statement or totally fabricated the whole story?
The short inquest into Mary Kelly's death was opened and closed on 12th November 1888 by Dr. McDonald the coroner. The press expressed their surprise at the sudden termination of the proceedings before all the witnesses had a chance to come forward.
Dr. Bagster Phillips was the first doctor to attend the murder location his inquest testimony is: “I am, divisional surgeon of police I was called by the police on Friday morning at eleven o'clock, and on proceeding to Miller's-court, which I entered at 11.15, I found a room, the door of which led out of the passage at the side of 26, Dorset-street, photographs of which I produce. It had two windows in the court. Two panes in the lesser window were broken, and as the door was locked I looked through the lower of the broken panes and satisfied myself that the mutilated corpse lying on the bed was not in need of any immediate attention from me, and I also came to the conclusion that there was nobody else upon the bed, or within view, to whom I could render any professional assistance. Having ascertained that probably it was advisable that no entrance should be made into the room at that time, I remained until about 1.30pm; when the door was broken open by McCarthy, under the direction of Superintendent Arnold. On the door being opened it knocked against a table, which was close to the left-hand side of the bedstead, and the bedstead was close against the wooden partition. The mutilated remains of a woman were lying two-thirds over, towards the edge of the bedstead, nearest the door. Deceased had only an under-linen garment upon her, and by subsequent examination I am sure the body had been removed, after the injury which caused death, from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition previously mentioned. The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner.”
Dr. Thomas Bond also attended the murder location and subsequently conducted the post-mortem. However, he was never called as a witness due to the coroner deciding to conclude the inquest before other witnesses were called. His report was lost/stolen and mysteriously returned to the police in 1987. His report on his initial examination and his subsequent post-mortem examination is as follow. However, it should be noted that it appears to be incomplete with the final page or pages missing:
“The body was lying naked in the middle of the bed, the shoulders flat, but the axis of the body inclined to the left side of the bed. The head was turned on the left cheek. The left arm was close to the body with the forearm flexed at a right angle & lying across the abdomen. The right arm was slightly abducted from the body & rested on the mattress, the elbow bent & the forearm supine with the fingers clenched. The legs were wide apart, the left thigh at right angles to the trunk & the right forming an obtuse angle with the pubes.
“The whole of the surface of the abdomen & thighs was removed & the abdominal cavity emptied of its viscera. The breasts were cut off, the arms mutilated by several jagged wounds & the face hacked beyond recognition of the features. The tissues of the neck were severed all round down to the bone.
“The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus & kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side & the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.
“The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, & on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about 2 feet square. The wall by the right side of the bed & in a line with the neck was marked by blood, which had struck it in a number of separate splashes.“
Post-mortem examination: “The face was gashed in all directions the nose cheeks, eyebrows and ears being partly removed. The lips were blanched & cut by several incisions running obliquely down to the chin. There were also numerous cuts extending irregularly across all the features.
“The neck was cut through the skin & other tissues right down to the vertebrae the 5th & 6th being deeply notched. The skin cuts in the front of the neck showed distinct ecchymosis.
“The air passage was cut at the lower part of the larynx through the cricoid cartilage.
“Both breasts were removed by more or less circular incisions, the muscles down to the ribs being attached to the breasts. The intercostals between the 4th, 5th & 6th ribs were cut through & the contents of the thorax visible through the openings.
“The skin & tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch to the pubes were removed in three large flaps. The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation & part of the right buttock. The left thigh was stripped of skin, fascia & muscles as far as the knee.
“The left calf showed a long gash through skin & tissues to the deep muscles & reaching from the knee to 5ins above the ankle.
“Both arms & forearms had extensive & jagged wounds.
“The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in long, with extravasations of blood in the skin & there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition.
“On opening the thorax it was found that the right lung was minimally adherent by old firm adhesions. The lower part of the lung was broken & torn away.
“The left lung was intact: it was adherent at the apex & there were a few adhesions over the side. In the substances of the lung were several nodules of consolidation.
“The pericardium was open below & the heart absent.
“In the abdominal cavity was some partially digested food of fish & potatoes & similar food was found in the remains of the stomach attached to the intestines.”
He states the heart was absent but it has never been made clear as to if the heart was absent from the room or simply absent from the pericardium. This is an important issue and has been the subject of many discussions amongst Ripper researchers over the years. It was also reported that Kelly’s room was revisited later that day and the contents of the fire grate examined, as it was believed that some of the organs had been burnt. However, there is no official confirmation of this. I have set out below extracts from several newspapers of the day who reported on the question of the missing organs.
The Echo, 10th November 1888...
“The investigation made by the doctors yesterday was not the final one, mainly because the room was ill-adapted for the purpose of carrying out a complete autopsy. The post-mortem examination-in-chief was only commenced this morning, at the early hour of half-past seven, when Dr. Phillips, Dr. Bond, Dr. Hibbert, and other experts attended. Some portions of the body are missing, and, says an Echo reporter, writing at two o'clock this afternoon, Dr. Phillips and Dr. Bond, accompanied by Inspector Moore, Inspector Abberline, and Inspector Reid, are again paying a visit to Miller's-court, in order to examine the ashes found in the grate, as it is thought small parts of the body may have been burnt.”
The Times 10th November
“The latest account states upon what professes to be indisputable authority that no portion of the woman's body was taken away by the murderer. As already stated, the post-mortem examination was of the most exhaustive character, and surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as closely as possible in its natural position.”
The Echo 12th November
“Nothing of any importance was discovered in the ashes at the deceased's house. A small portion only of the remains is missing, while it is noticeable as a special incident in the barbarous murder that the organ hitherto taken away at the mutilations was found in the room, although it had been cut out of the body...”
The Times 12th November
“As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination, which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case. The examination was most minutely made, and lasted upwards of 2 ½ hours after which the mutilated portions were sewn to the body, and therefore the coroner's jury will be spared the unpleasant duty of witnessing the horrible spectacle presented to those who discovered the murder. The ashes found in the fireplace of the room rented by the deceased woman were also submitted to a searching examination, but nothing likely to throw any light on this shocking case could be gleaned from them.”
On 25th October 1888, Sir Robert Anderson had written to Dr. Bond asking him to examine material connected with the Jack the Ripper investigation. In his letter Anderson enclosed copies of the evidence given at the inquests into the murders of Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes, and asked Bond to deliver his "opinion on the matter."
Bond examined the papers for two weeks and replied to Anderson on 10th November, 1888. Mary Jane Kelly had been killed the morning before in Dorset Street, and Bond had spent much of that day performing her autopsy.
Bond's report said:
"I beg to report that I have read the notes of the 4 Whitechapel murders viz:
1. Buck's Row.
2. Hanbury Street.
3. Berner Street.
4. Mitre Square.
“I have also made a Post-Mortem Examination of the mutilated remains of a woman found yesterday in a small room in Dorset Street –
“All five murders were no doubt committed by the same hand. In the first four the throats appear to have been cut from left to right. In the last case owing to the extensive mutilation it is impossible to say in what direction the fatal cut was made, but arterial blood was found on the wall in splashes close to where the woman's head must have been lying.
“All the circumstances surrounding the murders lead me to form the opinion that the women must have been lying down when murdered and in every case the throat was first cut. 3 in the four murders of which I have seen the notes only, I cannot form a very definite opinion as to the time that had elapsed between the murder and the discovering of the body.
“In one case, that of Berner Street, the discovery appears to have been made immediately after the deed - In Buck's Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed. In the Dorset Street case the body was lying on the bed at the time of my visit, 2 o'clock, quite naked and mutilated as in the annexed report –
“Rigor Mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination. From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death as the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in. The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock and the remains of a recently taken meal were found in the stomach and scattered about over the intestines. It is, therefore, pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours and the partly digested food would indicate: that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder.
“In all the cases there appears to be no evidence of struggling and the attacks were probably so sudden and made in such a position that the women could neither resist nor cry out. In the Dorset Street case the corner of the sheet to the right of the woman's head was much cut and saturated with blood, indicating that the face may have been covered with the sheet at the time of the attack.
“In the four first cases the murderer must have attacked from the right side of the victim. In the Dorset Street case, he must have attacked from in front or from the left, as there would be no room for him between the wall and the part of the bed on which the woman was lying. Again, the blood had flowed down on the right side of the woman and spurted on to the wall.
“The murderer would not necessarily be splashed or deluged with blood, but his hands and arms must have been covered and parts of his clothing must certainly have been smeared with blood.
“The mutilations in each case excepting the Berner’s Street one were all of the same character and showed clearly that in all the murders, the object was mutilation.
“In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge o
f a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.
“The instrument must have been a strong knife at least six inches long, very sharp, pointed at the top and about an inch in width. It may have been a clasp knife, a butcher's knife or a surgeon's knife. I think it was no doubt a straight knife.
“The murderer must have been a man of physical strength and of great coolness and daring. There is no evidence that he had an accomplice. He must in my opinion be a man subject to periodical attacks of Homicidal and erotic mania. The character of the mutilations indicates that the man may be in a condition sexually, that may be called satyriasis. It is of course possible that the Homicidal impulse may have developed from a revengeful or brooding condition of the mind, or that Religious Mania may have been the original disease, but I do not think either hypothesis is likely. The murderer in external appearance is quite likely to be a quiet inoffensive looking man probably middle aged and neatly and respectably dressed. I think he must be in the habit of wearing a cloak or overcoat or he could hardly have escaped notice in the streets if the blood on his hands or clothes were visible.
“Assuming the murderer to be such a person as I have just described he would probably be solitary and eccentric in his habits, also he is most likely to be a man without regular occupation, but with some small income or pension. He is possibly living among respectable persons who have some knowledge of his character and habits and who may have grounds for suspicion that he is not quite right in his mind at times. Such persons would probably be unwilling to communicate suspicions to the Police for fear of trouble or notoriety, whereas if there were a prospect of reward it might overcome their scruples.
I am, Dear Sir,
Yours faithfully,
Thos. Bond.
As can be seen Dr. Bond believed that the killer of all the victims did not show any anatomical knowledge. This again adds even more weight to my theory that the killer simply killed and mutilated Kelly and was not responsible for removing the organs from Eddowes and Chapman. He also makes no mention of the organ removals and the taking away of them.
Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files Page 7