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

by Covell, Mike

  The Daily News, a newspaper published in London, England, featured the following, dated September 20th 1888,

  The inquest into the latest of the Whitechapel murder cases was resumed yesterday, when among those who gave evidence were the man who has been spoken of as “the pensioner;” a woman who saw the deceased talking to a man in Hanbury street a few minutes before she is believed to have been murdered; and Dr. Phillips, who stated that important portions of the body were missing. The inquest was adjourned till next Wednesday. THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER. IMPORTANT EVIDENCE. Yesterday Mr. Wynne E. Baxter resumed, at the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel road, the inquest into the murder of Annie Chapman, aged 48, who was found dead and horribly mutilated in the back yard of the house, 29 Hanbury street, Spitalfields, about six o'clock on the morning of the 8th inst. Eliza Cooper deposed that she lodged at 35 Dorset street, Spitalfields, and was a hawker. She quarrelled with the deceased on the Tuesday before her death. That was on the 4th of September. On the previous Saturday the deceased brought Stanley with her to 35 Dorset street, where she took a piece of soap belonging to the witness and lent it to Stanley, but did not return it. On the Tuesday morning she met the deceased again in the kitchen at 35 Dorset street, and said to her, “Perhaps you'll return my soap.” The deceased replied, “Never mind your soap. Here's a halfpenny.” They began to quarrel but went to a neighbouring public house, called The Ringers, where the quarrel was continued. The deceased slapped the witness's face, and the witness gave her a blow on the chest. She last saw her alive on the following day in the same public house. The deceased was then wearing three brass rings on the third finger of the left hand. She had never had a gold wedding ring during the fifteen months that the witness had known her. She associated with the man Stanley, with Harry the Hawker, and several others. Questioned by jurymen, the witness could not sat whether any of the “several other” men that the deceased knew were missing. She used to being them to the lodging house. Dr. G.B. Phillips, divisional police surgeon, having been recalled, the Coroner said that since the last meeting he had come to the conclusion that all the evidence which the witness could give in consequence of having made the post mortem examination should be on the records of the Court. However painful that course might be, it was necessary in the interests of justice. Dr. Phillips bowed to this decision, but regretted that the Coroner had felt bound to come to it. Proceeding to give his evidence, the witness said that on the last occasion he mentioned that there were several reasons why it appeared that whoever cut the deceased's throat seized her by the chin when doing so. On the left side below the lower jaw there were three scratches of recent age. There was a bruise on the right cheek, and a well marked bruise at a point corresponding with the abrasions on the left side. He had watched these bruises, and found that they became much more distinct. As for the injuries to the abdomen he thought that to give the details would thwart the ends of justice. The Coroner - Justice has had a long time to work in, but I see ladies and boys in the court, and at all events I feel bound to say that they ought to leave. The direction having been complied with, the Coroner remarked that they were bound to take evidence regarding the injuries to the parts of the body other than the head and throat; but whether it ought to be made public or not was for the consideration of the Press. The Foreman - The jury are of opinion that the evidence which the doctor wished to keep back should be heard. The Coroner had never before heard of a request to keep back evidence at an inquest. Dr. Phillips - I leave myself entirely in the hands of the Court. The Coroner - I delayed the evidence in question as long as possible because I understood you to say that there were reasons which you knew, but which I don't know, why that course was desirable in the interests of justice. It is now however nearly a fortnight since the death, and therefore justice has had some little time to avenge itself. Dr. Phillips remarked that details respecting the injuries to the abdomen would not elucidate the cause of death, because death took place before they were affected. The Coroner had no doubt that the doctor's opinion was right, but after all it might possible be contradicted by another medical opinion. Dr. Phillips then gave details respecting the injuries to the body, stating among other things that important portions of the anatomy were missing when the deceased was found. In his opinion the weapon used was five or six inches long if not more, and was very sharp. The perpetrator must have had some anatomical knowledge. Had the witness been dissecting, with nothing to struggle against, he could not have carried out in less than a quarter of an hour such cutting operations as had been performed on the deceased; and if he had worked with the deliberation due to a surgical operation he would probably have taken the best part of an hour. The Foreman of the Jury - If a photograph had been taken of the eyes might it have shown the portrait of the murderer? Dr. Phillips was understood to say that he had no practical experience which would enable him to answer his question. The Foreman - Might not bloodhounds have been used? Dr. Phillips - My opinion was asked on that point early in the case, and I said it would be useless. Bloodhounds would be more likely to trace the blood of the deceased than anything else. In answer to the Coroner, Dr. Phillips said the symptoms which he found in the body were consistent with partial suffocation. Elizabeth Long deposed that she was a married woman living at 3 Church Row. On the morning of the murder she was going along Hanbury street on her way to Spitalfields Market. A neighbouring clock had just struck half past five. She saw a man come to a woman and stand and talk with her near No. 29. The witness saw the woman's face. She had never seen her before, but she recognised the deceased when she saw her in the mortuary as the same person. The Coroner - Are you sure? The Witness - Oh, yes. The Coroner - Did you see the man's face? The witness replied that she did not, and she could not recognise him again. He was, however, dark complexioned and was wearing a brown deerstalker hat. She thought he was wearing a dark coat, but could not be sure. Was he a man or a boy? - Oh, he was a man over forty, as far as I could tell. He seemed to be a little taller than the deceased. He looked to me like a foreigner, as well as I could make out. Was he a labourer or what? - He looked what I should call shabby genteel. Were they talking loud? - Yes; I heard him say, “Will you?” and she said, “Yes.” That is all I heard. Did you see where they went to? - Oh no, sir! I left them standing and went to my work. Did they appear sober? - I don't know, sir. I did not take particular notice of them. I did not see anything that made me think they were the worse for drink. Was it not unusual to see a man and a woman talking together at that hour? - No; I see lots of them. The Foreman remarked that, according to the doctor, the deceased had been dead about two hours when found at six o'clock. The Coroner - Yes; but he qualified it very much. The witness, questioned further, was quite sure that it was half past five when she saw the deceased talking to a man in Hanbury street. Edward Stanley, No. 1 Oswald place, Oswald street, Spitalfields, said he was a bricklayer's labourer but was known as “The Pensioner.” He had visited the deceased once or twice at the lodging house, 35 Dorset street, and had been with her elsewhere a few times. He last saw alive on Sunday, the 2nd inst., between one and three o'clock in the afternoon. She was then wearing two rings, which he was inclined to think were brass. He did not know that she was on bad terms with anybody. On the occasion that he referred to she had a black eye, and she said something to him about having a quarrel. A Juror - Are you the man that went to the lodging house in Dorset street with her week after week? The Witness - No, sir, I have never done so; only once or twice. The Coroner - Are you a pensioner? The Witness - Can I not object to that question? It has nothing to do with the case. The Coroner - Yes it has. It was aid that the man she used to meet had just been to draw his pension. The Witness - Then it was not me. Have you ever belonged to the Royal Sussex Regiment? - No. Timothy Donovan, the deputy at the lodging house, was recalled and said that Edward Stanley, then present, was the man whom he called the pensioner. It was he that used to come to the lodging house with the deceased and stay with her from Saturday to Monday.
He had also told the witness not to let her in if she had any other man with her. Saturday, September 1st, was the last time that witness saw him with the deceased. The Coroner - What have you to say to that, Mr. Stanley? Stanley - You can cross it all out, sir. You are talking to an honest man when you talk to me, sir - a man that speaks the truth. I was at Gosport from the 8th August to September 1st, so I could not have been with the deceased. Albert Cadosch, carpenter, testified that he lived at 27 Hanbury street, next door to the house at the back of which the deceased was found. On that morning he got up about a quarter past five and went into the back yard. As he was returning into the house he heard a voice quite near. He could not be sure that it came from the yard of No. 29. Three or four minutes the witness was again in the yard of the house in which he lived, and heard “a sort of fall” against the fence. He did not look to see what it was. The Coroner - Had you heard any previous noise? - No, sir. Did you then leave the house? - Yes, sir, to go to work. It was about two minutes after half past five. At that time in the morning do you often hear people in these yards? - Now and then. They make packing cases at 29, and I sometimes hear them. The Foreman - Had you not the curiosity to look over the palings when you heard the fall? The Witness - Well, now and then a packing case falls against the palings, and I did not think that there was anything wrong. William Stevens, painter, lodging at 35 Dorset street, said he knew the deceased and last saw her alive about twenty minutes past midnight of the day before her murder. She was in the kitchen of the lodging house. She was not the worse for drink. Her rings were on her fingers. He did not know of anyone that she was on bad terms with. The Coroner - It is a question now whether the jury will give their verdict on an early date or adjourn for some time to await the result of police inquiries. A Juror - is there any chance of a Government reward? The Coroner shook his head, apparently to indicate that he did not know. The Foreman - Mr. Montagu, M.P., has offered a reward. The Juror - There is more dignity about a Government reward. The inquest was adjourned till Wednesday at 2.30, with the understanding that it would be completed then.