Annie Chapman - Wife, Mother, Victim: The Life & Death of a Victim of Jack The Ripper

by Covell, Mike

Freeman's Journal and Daily Commercial Advertiser, a newspaper published in Dublin, Ireland, featured the following, dated September 20th 1888,

  From LONDON CORRESPONDENCE. When the evidence given by the doctor yesterday in the case of the second of the Whitechapel atrocities becomes generally known, we are likely to experience a new and more serious phase of the murder panic. The extent to which the mind of the public has been unhinged by what has already happened was graphically illustrated by what occurred in Picadilly on Wednesday morning. An assault on a woman was magnified into another mysterious murder, and the story was swallowed without hesitation. But there can be no doubt that the evidence of Dr Phillips places the Whitechapel crimes in a most alarming light. Since the days when Burke and Hare made murder their means of livelihood no more atrocious and appalling crime than the cold-blooded butchering of the woman Chapman has been perpetrated. The most shocking feature of the case is that in view of all the circumstances it is difficult to believe that the criminal is a lunatic. The actual crime might have been committed by a madman, but it could not have been planned by one. There is a good deal to be said for Dr Phillips' objection to make public the evidence he gave yesterday. Publicity may assist in the detection of the culprit, but it is much more likely to have the opposite effect. THE WHITECHAPEL INQUEST. London, Wednesday. The inquest on the body of Annie Chapman, who was murdered in Hanbury-street on the morning of the 8th inst, was resumed by Mr. Wynne Baxter, at Whitechapel this afternoon. Eliza Cooper, of 35 Dorset-street, deposed that she was a hawker and lodged at that address five months. She knew deceased. Witness had a quarrel with her on Tuesday before her death. Afterwards she noticed deceased's face was marked. The last time witness saw her alive was Wednesday, 5th inst, in the Ringers' public house. Deceased had three brass rings on her left hand. The deceased associated with a man named Ted Stanley and others. She used to bring them to the public house. Dr G Baxter Phillips, recalled, proceeded to give additional details of the results of his examination of the body. Certain incisions and bruises led him to the conclusion that the woman was seized by the chin while the incisions in the throat were being inflicted. He thought that if he gave any further details of the results of his examination it would be thwarting justice. The Coroner intimated that at this stage ladies and boys should leave the court; and the Foreman of the jury said the jury were of opinion that the evidence which the doctor desired to keep back should be given. Dr Phillips - The evidence will not elucidate the cause of death. The Coroner - That is a matter of opinion. Dr Phillips - Death took place before the injury was inflicted. The Coroner - That is a matter of opinion, doctor, and it might be rebutted by other medical evidence at the inquest. The doctor's medical evidence on the first day was read over. Dr Phillips said the abdominal walls had been removed, and there was a greater portion of skin removed on the right side than on the left. The portion constituting the naval was wanting. The witness proceeded to give details of the condition of the internal organs. The weapon used was probably five or six inches, or more, in length. The manner of cutting the body indicated a certain amount of anatomical knowledge. In reply to the Coroner witness added that he himself could not have inflicted the injuries under a quarter of an hour, even in a hurried manner. Elizabeth Young, living at No. 3 Church-row, deposed to seeing deceased with a tall dark man like a foreigner, about half-past five on the morning of the 8th, in Hanbury-street. They were talking. The man said “Will you?” and the woman replied “Yes.” Witness left them standing together. Edward Stanley, bricklayer's labourer, stated that he was known as the “pensioner.” He knew deceased and sometimes visited her. He denied that he stayed with her as stated by the keeper of the lodging house, and said he voluntarily went to Commercial-street Police-station and offered to give evidence. Some other witnesses having been examined, a discussion took place as to whether a reward should be offered, and several of the jury expressed themselves strongly to the effect that the Government ought to come forward in that direction. The inquest was then adjourned for a week.

  The Morning Advertiser, a newspaper published in London, featured the following, dated September 20th 1888,

  The adjourned inquest upon Annie Chapman, the last of the Whitechapel murder victims, was resumed yesterday, when Dr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of police, who made the post mortem examination, after again protesting against being called upon to give details of the mutilation of the body, stated that two portions of the body were missing. The inquiry was further adjourned.

  THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER

  Yesterday the resumed inquest into the circumstances attending the death of Anne Chapman, who was murdered in the back yard of 29 Hanbury street, was held at the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel road, before Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, coroner. Chief Inspectors West, Abberline, Helson, and Chandler were present to watch the case on behalf of the police. Eliza Cooper, who said she lodged at 35 Dorset street, Whitechapel, deposed that she was a hawker, and knew the deceased with whom she had quarrel. This was on the Tuesday before the deceased's death, and was in consequence of something which happened on the previous Saturday. The quarrel was over Mr. Stanley, and was about some soap which the deceased had borrowed from her for him. One word brought up another, and they continued the quarrel until they arrived at the “Ringers” public house, when the deceased slapped her (witness's) face, and she (witness) struck her back, hitting her over the temple. The blow inflicted a mark. She saw the deceased last at the “Ringers” on the Wednesday. At that time she was wearing three rings on the wedding ring finger of the left hand. They were all brass. She did not know anything about her having had a gold wedding ring. Do you know anyone with whom she associated? - Only Stanley, Harry the Hawker, and several others. A Juror - Who were the “several others”? - I could not say. Are any of them missing? - I cannot say. She only brought them casually to the lodging house. Dr. Phillips, who made the post mortem examination, was recalled. The Coroner said he had considered the question of not going into the details of the mutilations, but thought it was essential that all the evidence which could be obtained should appear on the records. Dr. Phillips protested that the evidence was unnecessary, and added - On the last occasion I mentioned reasons why I thought the perpetrator of the murder caught hold of the woman's chin before he cut her throat. I should like to state that on the left side of the face, just below the lower jaw, there were three partially healed wounds. These had evidently been interfered with, and on the corresponding side of the face I found bruises such as would be caused by the pressure of fingers. After some further remarks, Dr. Philips said - I still think that to give the details will be to thwart justice. The Coroner - We are here to inquire into the cause of death, and we are bound to hear all the evidence which can be obtained. Whether the evidence should be published I must of course leave to the representatives of the Press themselves to decide. I have listened very attentively to what you (the doctor) have said, but I certainly never before heard in an inquiry of this kind a request that certain evidence should be kept back. I may say that I have delayed taking this evidence as long as possible, so that the interests of justice might be served. It is now a fortnight since the murder was committed, and therefore justice has had some little time to avenge itself. I have done all I can in the interests of justice. Dr. Phillips - You are here to inquire into the cause of death, and what I have to detail as to it. The mutilation all took place subsequent to the death. The Coroner - That is your opinion. I can quite imagine that it is correct, but after all it is only opinion, and it may be rebutted. In the opinions of other medical men we often see this, and I must therefore trouble you for your further evidence. The jury said they were strongly of opinion that the evidence should be given. Dr. Phillips then requested that the evidence given by him on the former occasion might be read over, and, this having been done, he said the abdominal wall had been removed in three parts - two from the anterior part. There was a greater portion of skin removed on the right side than on the left. On adjusti
ng these three flaps it was evident that a portion surrounding and constituting the navel was wanting. The womb itself and two thirds of the bladder were absent from the body and could nowhere be traced. It was apparent that these absent portions, together with the division of the large of the large intestine, were the result of the same incising cut, and hence his opinion that the length of the weapon was at least five or six inches, and probably more. The wounds generally confirmed him in his opinion that the instrument must have been of a very sharp character. The removal of the abdominal wall indicated certain anatomical knowledge, as did the cutting in three portions of the abdominal wall, and the non cutting of the intestine. Also the way in which the womb was removed showed this in a more marked degree. The Coroner - Can you say how long it would take to do all this? The Witness - I may say that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw inflicted on the deceased, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour; but if I had proceeded with the deliberation of a surgeon, it would have taken me an hour. Hence I say the removal was done hastily. My idea is that the mutilations were committed with the object of obtaining possession of the womb. The Coroner - There is a distinct variance in the medical evidence in this case from that given in the case of the woman Nichols. The doctor in that case was strongly of opinion that the wounds in the abdomen were inflicted before the throat was cut. In this case Dr. Phillips says the throat was cut first. A Juror - What we should like to know is whether it is probable that the two murders were committed with the same instrument. Dr. Phillips was understood to say that he was unable to give any information upon the point. The Foreman - Was the question of photographing the eyes considered, and if it had been done, would it have been likely to have been of use? - Witness said he had no experience on the point. Has any suggestion been made as to the employment of bloodhounds? - The police consulted me upon the question, but I do not think it would have been successful, because the blood of the victim must have been stronger than that of the murderer, and would have been more likely to have been traced. Were the indications of suffocation such as might have produced the insensibility? - Quite so. Mary Long, Church row, Whitechapel, said - On the Saturday morning, the day of the murder, I was passing down Hanbury street, on the way to Spitalfields market, about half past five o'clock. I passed 29 Hanbury street. I saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement talking. His back was turned towards Brick lane, and her back towards the market. They were standing within a few yards of the door of No. 29. I saw the woman's face, and having seen the deceased's face I am sure she was the person. Did you see the man's face? - Only that I noticed he was dark. I could not recognise him again. He was wearing a brown felt hat. I think he had on a dark coat. Could you tell his age? - No, I could not. Was he a boy or a man? - A man certainly. He looked to be over 40 years of age, and was a little taller then the deceased. Did you form any idea as to what he was - whether he was a labourer? - He looked shabby genteel, and seemed to be a foreigner; but whether a labourer or not I cannot say. Were they talking loud? - Yes. I heard him say “Will you?” and she replied “Yes.” I then passed them, and left them standing where I had seen them. Did they look back at all? - No. Were they sober? - I saw nothing to indicate that either of them was the worse for drink. Did you see where they went to? - No, I did not. Is it not an unusual thing to see a man and woman talking in that way? - No. I see a lot of them sometimes standing talking. A Juror - Is she quite correct about the time? Dr. Phillips, who saw the body soon after six o'clock, said the deceased had been dead two hours. The Coroner - The doctor very considerably qualified the statement, because he gave reasons why the body would get cold sooner. By the Jury - She was quite certain it was half past six (sic) o'clock, as the clock struck directly afterwards. Edward Stanley, of Oswald place, Oswald street, Spitalfields, deposed - I am a bricklayer's labourer, and am known as a pensioner. I knew the deceased, and had been in the habit of visiting her monthly, or once or twice a month. I last her alive on Sunday, the 2nd of September, between one and three o'clock in the afternoon. She was wearing two rings, which I had given her. One was a sort of oval ring, and the other was a flat ring. I should think they were brass rings. Do you know anyone with whom she was on bad terms? - No. She had a slight black eye when I last saw her. She told me something about an altercation. It is possible that I might have seen the deceased later than the Sunday, as I was doing nothing all the week. I have not been in the habit of staying with the deceased from the Saturday to the Monday. The Coroner - Are you a pensioner? - Am I obliged to answer that question? I am thinking that it may affect your financial position, perhaps, if it is found out you are not a pensioner - Well, my financial position is having to attend here upon an empty stomach, and in having my name published all over Europe. I shall perhaps lose my place through being here now. Then you were never in the Sussex Regiment? - No. It must have been some other man. Donovan, the lodging house keeper where deceased stayed, was recalled and identified the witness, whom he knew as the pensioner. He was the man who used to come to the lodging house and stay with the deceased from the Saturday to the Monday. and he it was who told him (witness) to let no other man have the bed. The Coroner - How many times have you seen him there? - Six or seven times. In reply to the Coroner, Stanley said, “Please cross all that out;” and he added that what he had stated was correct. He was at Gosport from the 6th of August to the 1st of September, and could not have been at the lodging house, so that he could not have been there then. By the Coroner - I have known the deceased for two years. Upon seeing the remarks of the coroner on the last occasion. I went to the Commercial road police station, and told them all I knew. I went there voluntarily, and am here the same. On hearing of the murder, I, the same day, went to the lodging house and asked if it was true. On finding it was I was surprised, and went away, as I knew I could give no information about it. I don't want to be here now; it's all a loss to me to come, I can tell you. Witness, who had several times in the course of the examination expressed annoyance at being there without payment, was informed that his expenses would be allowed, and appeared to derive considerable satisfaction from the intimation. Adolphus Caposch , carpenter, lodging next door to 29, Hanbury street, said - About a quarter past five o'clock in the morning of the 8th inst., I was in the yard. I returned in about five minutes, and heard a voice close to me, but I could not say on which side, or in which yard, say “No.” I went in and came back into the yard in three or four minutes, and then I heard a sort of fall against the fence which divides the yard from No. 29. What sort of noise was it? - Well, as if something had touched the fence suddenly. The voice I heard appeared to come from the yard of No. 29. I did not look to see who it was. Afterwards I left the house on my way to my work, and I saw by the clock it was about half past five o'clock. Do you often hear people in these yards? - Not often, but sometimes I do. By a Juror - I told the police the same day, within an hour and a half of hearing of the murder. The fence is about five or six feet high. Next door there is a packing case maker's, and I did not think it strange to hear the fall against the fence. The Coroner - Did you see a man or woman in the street? - No; I only saw workmen passing by to their work. William Stevens, 35 Dorset street, said he last saw the deceased alive at 25 minutes past twelve o'clock on the morning of the murder. She was then in the kitchen of 25 Dorset street, and was wearing the rings on her finger. She was not the worse for drink. He noticed her pick up a piece of paper near the fireplace, and believed the part of an envelope produced with “Sussex Regiment” stamped upon it, was the piece. She took out of her pocket a pill box, and two pills fell out of it. These she put into the piece of envelope and put it into her pocket. When she went out of the kitchen he thought she had gone to bed, because she said she should not be long out of bed. Do you know of anyone with whom the deceased was on bad terms? - No, I do not. The Coroner - We have now heard all the evidence which can be produced; and it is a question for the jury to consider whether they would close the inquiry or hav
e another adjournment. The foreman said he did not see that any good would result from keeping the inquest open. A Juror - Is there any chance of a reward? The Foreman - Yes. Mr. S. Montagu, M.P., has offered reward of £100; and we are getting up subscriptions for the purpose of increasing the amount or offering another reward. Intimation has been made that the Government will not offer a reward. After some further conversation, the inquiry was further adjourned for a week.

  The Irish Times, a newspaper published in Dublin, Ireland, featured the following, dated September 20th 1888,

  The marked attention of the entire English public has gravely been excited by the appearance of a letter in the Times over the well known signature S.G.O., dealing with the horrors that lately have been recounted from the infamous neighbourhood of Whitechapel. The writer uses strong language, and taking to task a class of social philanthropists whose energies might be directed into more beneficial channels than those they now occupy. The sentimentalism of philanthropy has been its bane, and indulgence in it has handicapped terribly many movements which more wisely directed, would have conferred a greater benefit upon humanity. The seed of evil, says S.G.O., has been sown, and we must expect to reap the harvest. “At last we are beginning to see what is the meaning and result of the existence in our midst of tens of thousands of our fellow-creatures, begotten and reared in an atmosphere of godless brutality, a species of human savage, the very drainage of the vilest productions of ordinary vice.” Facts warrant the employment of such terms, for at this late hour in the modern day there are districts, not peculiar to London alone - though there the worst - in all great centres of population, where vice is born and reared, amidst a squalor and abandonment of which the citizen but a little removed knows nothing. These are the nests of social disease, from which proceed the monsters that vex society, and so frequently shock the moral sense of the community by appearing as the guiding spirits in an epidemic of crime. It is a commonplace reflection that criminals are educated with the utmost ingenuity of profligacy to take their part in the war upon society, and it is equally a known fact that the downward path in the majority of cases leads at last to that description of abandoned wickedness which of late in the case of the Whitechapel tragedies has so awfully been demonstrated. For this, who is responsible? The officers of the law may be blamed, and perhaps not altogether unjustly so, for a want of vigilance, but are they ultimately to be held accountable for the existence of the foul blot? The public must bear their part of the burden, for as the Times observes, “we seem to have listlessly acquiesced in the existence of these kitchen-middens of humanity; to have treated them as though society must keep a receptacle for the collection of its waste material. We have long ago learnt that neglected organic refuse breeds pestilence. Can we doubt that neglected human refuse as inevitably breeds crime, and that crime reproduces itself like germs in an infected atmosphere, and becomes at each successive cultivation more deadly, more bestial, and more absolutely unrestrained?” Mr BARNETT, Vicar of St. Jude's, Whitechapel, further writes to the journal quoted, with a special knowledge of the East End, and utters these startling words - “The murders were, it may almost be said, bound to come; generation could not follow generation in lawless intercourse; children could not be familiarised with scenes of degradation, community in society could not be the bond of society, and the end of all peace.” And the writer, who has special means of knowledge, adds - “Some of us who during many years have known the life of our neighbours do not think these murders to be the worst facts in our experience, and published evidence now gives material for forming a picture of daily or nightly life such as no one has imagined.” We thus were given to understand that worse remains behind, and the public can readily conceive how dread are the fatal influences of virulent social disease working at this moment in the slums of the densely populated cities. For the moment London has a bad pre-eminence, but can we honestly look around us as citizens of lesser towns and flatter ourselves that we are not as other men? But how is this crying evil to be swept from among us? How is the light of purity to be let in upon these dens of iniquity? How are we at once to stamp out the grosser forms of crime and instil the sentiments of responsibility which so many hapless wretches are ignorant of? The problem is a vast one, but who will say that it is insoluble? To meet it is not the business of a department or a society of philanthropic visionaries. The duty is one that falls on all classes alike, and from their common stirring alone can good issue. The prominence given to the discussion has stimulated a multitudinous variety of suggestions. We do not propose to consider them at present in detail. But it may be noticed that the VICAR of ST. JUDE'S puts forward four primarily necessary directions which reform must take - efficient police supervision, adequate lighting and cleaning, the removal of slaughter-houses, and the control of tenement houses by responsible landlords. These would be radical changes, but they would represent nothing more than an initial step. Let the world ask itself, “Who is my neighbour?” and strive to supply the answer that humanity should dictate. From LONDON CORRESPONDENCE. The horrible butcheries in the East End continue to afford the public mind a superabundance of unhealthy sensation. The sickening details disclosed at the inquest to-day tend to prove that the diabolical atrocity must have been the work of a maniac. The newspapers have awakened to the fact that our city is infected with plague spots which breed moral diseases owing to the over-crowding and want of proper sanitary arrangements. A wholesale excision of these centres of immorality an crime is advocated, but as usual the means suggested to bring about the much needed reform are somewhat visionary. THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER. THE RESUMED INQUEST. HORRIBLE DISCLOSURES. (SPECIAL TELEGRAPH). LONDON, WEDNESDAY. The resumed inquiry into the circumstances of Annie Chapman's death at 29 Hanbury street was held this afternoon at the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel road, before Mr Wynne Baxter, who was accompanied by his deputy, Mr George Collier. Chief Inspector West, Inspector Abberline, Inspector Helson and Inspector Chandler represented the police. Eliza Cooper, living at 36 Dorset street (a common lodginghouse), Spitalfields, said she had been lodging there for five months. On the Saturday before Annie Chapman's death witness lent a piece of soap to the deceased. Ted Stanley was then present. On the following Tuesday witness asked Mrs Chapman for the piece of soap lent her. They then went to a public house, and a quarrel ensued. Did you strike her? Yes on the left eye, and also on the head. When did you last see her alive? On Wednesday, 5th September. She was then wearing three rings on the third finger of the left hand. Were they gold? No, brass - all three. She has never had a gold wedding ring to my knowledge. Did you know anyone else besides Stanley with whom she associated? She associated with several others besides Stanley. By the Jury - I could not say that any of the men are missing. Dr. G. H. Phillips, re-examined, deposed - On the last occasion I mentioned that there were reasons why I thought the perpetrator of the murder caught hold of the woman's throat. On the left side, below the lower jaw, are three scratches one and a half to two inches below the lower lobe of the ear, and going in the contrary direction to the incision in the throat. These are of recent date. The abrasions are on the left side and on the right side are corresponding bruises. I washed the bruises, and they became much more distinct, whereas the bruises mentioned in my last evidence remained the same. The woman had been seized by the chin while the incisions in the throat had been perpetrated. Dr Phillips then paused, and said that in the interests of justice he thought it would be better not to give the full details. The Coroner - We have to decide the cause of death, and have a right to hear the particulars. Whether that evidence is made public rests with the Press. I may say that I have never heard of any evidence being kept back before. Dr Phillips - I am, of course, in the hands of the court. What I was going to detail took place after death. The Coroner - That is a matter of opinion, doctor. Medical men often differ, you know. Dr Phillips repeated that he did not think the details should be given. Justice might be frustrated and (glancing at some ladies and boys in the cou
rt) - The Coroner remarked that justice had had a long time to solve the case, but he certainly thought that the ladies and boys should leave the room. The foreman - We are of the opinion that the evidence the doctor wishes to keep back ought certainly to be given. The Coroner said he had delayed calling the evidence in order that it might not interfere with justice, but justice had had about a fortnight to avenge itself. Dr Phillips - But it will not elucidate the cause of death. The Coroner (warmly) said he must have the evidence. The Court was then cleared of ladies and boys. Dr Phillips (resuming) gave evidence regarding the removal of portions of the body. It was evident, continued the witness, that these absent portions, together with the incision in the large intestine, were the result of the same excising power. Thus I consider the weapon was from five to six inches long, and the appearance of the cuts confirm in me the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the structures of the neck, must have been of a very sharp character. The mode of removal of the abdominal wall indicated a certain anatomical knowledge, but the excision of certain viscera conveyed to my mind a greater anatomical knowledge. It is only an inference, but I think I ought to mention it, that the early removal of the intestines in the yard was necessary to enable the operator to effect other excisions. The Coroner - How long did it take to inflict all those injuries? Dr Phillips - I could not have performed the removal in under a quarter of an hour. In reply to two other questions Dr Phillips said that had he to excise the portions in a deliberate way as a surgeon, it would have taken him an hour to remove them. By the Jury - Witness at an early stage gave his advice to the police that it would be useless to photograph the retina of the woman's eyes to see what was the last object retained on them. He also advised that bloodhounds would be of no use. The appearance of the dead woman's face was consistent with partial suffocation. Elizabeth Long, Church row, Whitechapel, stated that on Saturday morning, the day of the deceased's death, she was passing down Hanbury street to go to Spitalfields Market, at half past 5 o'clock, when she saw a man and woman on the pavement. The man's back was turned towards Brick lane and the woman's towards Spitalfields Market. They were standing a few yards from No 29 Hanbury street, the Brick lane end. Witness saw the woman's face. She had seen the body at the mortuary and was quite sure that it was the same. She could not see the man's face. He was dark ad had a brown hat turned up at the side. It was a “deerstalker” - though his coat was dark He was a little taller than the deceased. Did he look like a working man? He looked like a foreigner. He was dark. Did he look like a dock labourer? What I should call shabby genteel. They were talking loudly. He said to her “Will you?” and she said “Yes.” Was that all? Yes. Did you see where they went to? No. I went to my work and did not look back. I saw nothing to make me think they were the worse for drink. Was it not unusual to see a man and woman talking together at that hour of the day? I see a lot f them sometimes talking at that hour. By the Coroner - I am quite sure it was half past 5 when I saw the deceased talking to the man. I heard a brew house clock strike the half hour. I got to the market a little after the half hour. I am sure I heard him say “Will you,” and her reply “Yes.” Edward Stanley, Orchard place, Orchard street, Brick lane, said he was a bricklayer's labourer. Are you known by the name of “the Pensioner?” Yes. I knew the deceased. I sometimes visited her at 35 Dorset street - once or twice, something like that. When did you last see her alive? - On Sunday, the 2nd of September, between two and three in the afternoon. Was she wearing rings then? - Yes, two. I should think they were brass. I don't know of anyone she was on bad terms with. When I last saw her she had a black eye given her by some other woman. By the Jury - Witness was not the man who visited 35 Dorset street from the Saturday till the Monday. The Coroner - Are you a pensioner? Witness (warily) - Am I bound to answer that question? The Coroner - Yes. The deceased told a woman on one occasion that you were going for your pension. Witness - Then it could not have been me. By the Jury - Witness was at Gosport from the 6th of August to the 1st of September. He went to 35 Dorset street on Saturday afternoon of the week following the murder. He did not give information then to the police, but went to them at Commercial street where he read the remarks published about him. Albert Cadosh, a carpenter, of 27 Hanbury street, (next door to 29), said that at a quarter past 5 on the morning of the murder he went out into the yard, and returning almost directly after he heard a voice say “No.” It appeared to come from No 29. Three or four minutes after he went out again. On going back he heard a sort of fall against the fence which divides No 27 from No 29. Something seemed to strike the fence suddenly. He did not look to see what it was. He heard no struggling. William Steven, 35 Dorset street, said he last saw the deceased alive at 20 minutes past 12 at midnight on Friday, September 7. She was then sober. He saw her pick up a piece of envelope near the fireplace. The foreman remarked that altogether £300 had been privately offered as a reward for information as to the murderer. The inquiry was then again adjourned.