by Ivor Edwards
Mary Kelly could not be recognised by her facial features. It was stated that Joseph Barnett only recognised her by the colour of her eyes and her unusual ears. Yet Dr Bond stated that her ears had been partly removed. It was assumed that the body on the bed was Kelly because her clothing was found in a neat and deliberate pile on a chair, the body was found in Kelly’s room, and nothing more was ever heard of Kelly after the murder.
Several people, including Mrs Maxwell and Maurice Lewis, stated that they either saw Kelly or spoke to her between 8.00am and 10.00am on 9 November 1888. This was six or eight hours after medical and other evidence suggested that she was murdered. Mrs Maxwell stated that she had known Kelly for some months and that she had seen her between 8.00am and 8.30am standing at the corner of Millers Court.
She said Kelly was dressed in a green bodice, dark skirt and a maroon crossover shawl (Kelly was seen wearing a shawl the previous day). Mrs Maxwell went on to say that she had a conversation with Kelly in which Kelly said she had been for a drink but had vomited it up. Maxwell went on to add that about one hour later she saw Kelly talking to a man outside the Britannia public house. I would like to know if the crossover shawl was ever found in Kelly’s room. What happened to that shawl?
It is a matter of conjecture whether the killer went to Millers Court to meet Kelly or whether he met her in Commercial Street. We do know she was in bed when attacked and was awake at the time. The cry of ‘Murder’ heard by independent witnesses enforces this fact. A sheet had covered the region of her neck. The top part of the sheet was found to have knife cuts in it.
If she was in bed and awake when attacked she may have pulled the sheet up with her hands out of fright and in an attempt to protect herself. The victim’s hands had defensive knife wounds on them. A great amount of blood was found at the head of the bed in the corner on the sheet and mattress and on the floor in the corner. The killer possibly cut her throat instead of rendering her unconscious like the other victims.
When her throat was cut she was lying on her right side facing the wall and in the process the blood went all over the area at the corner of the bed. Medical evidence showed that she had been placed on to her back, as were victims one, two and four, after death. I cannot see this killer creeping into her room on speculation. Thus I believe Kelly took the killer to her room after they had possibly met in Commercial Street. It is very feasible that she either knew her killer, or that the killer knew of her.
Kelly, like other Ripper victims, was killed in a corner, leaving her with no escape. Kelly was heard to say to her last customer, ‘All right my dear, come along, you will be comfortable.’ Did she mean by this remark that she would light a fire to dry their clothes and to keep them warm?
After spending time on the mutilations, the killer possibly placed any soiled items which had belonged to him on the fire. My suspect was known to carry alcohol in a flask so he may well have used this substance to soak items (evidence) he wished to burn. He may have worn one set of clothing to the scene (while carrying another set) then possibly burned the clothes he wore to the scene in Kelly’s room, thus changing into a different attire on leaving.
This would have several advantages. Firstly, if someone had seen Jack enter Millers Court with Kelly and they (or someone else) had seen him leave it would be concluded that two different men were seen because two different descriptions would have been given. Secondly, once the killer left the scene he was safe; he would not be covered in blood after this slaughter and attract attention to himself.
Common sense dictates that he is not going to leave the scene covered in blood. I believe that he burned his own items on the fire and then placed other items he found in the room on the fire (items owned by Mrs Harvey). This was done to cover the fact that it was his own items that were burned.
Inspector Abberline, the Metropolitan Police Inspector in charge of detectives in the field investigating the Whitechapel Murders, stated that the items belonging to Mrs Harvey were in his opinion burned to give the killer light to work by! He did not take into consideration that the killer possibly burned his own items adding items of Harvey’s to conceal the fact.
The key to Kelly’s door had been missing for some time prior to the murder. The lock on Kelly’s door was of the spring bolt type, which could lock automatically when the door was closed. Barnett stated access to the room was gained by placing a hand through the broken pane of glass in the window, and opening the door from the inside. It is more than likely that Kelly and her ‘room mates’ kept the lock on the latch when leaving the room so entry could be gained without the need of placing an arm through the broken window.
Needless to say this method would have been rather a hassle and dangerous if one was the worse off for drink at the time. If the lock had not been placed on the latch and the door was locked inadvertently by Kelly as she left the room then one would suppose that the window method was used to gain entry again.
When the killer left the room, he no doubt took the latch off the lock so that when he closed the door behind him the door locked automatically. This explains why the door was broken open. McCarthy either did not know that the door could be opened from the window or if he did then being in a state of shock at the time he did not think of it.
Although the killer was in the confines of a room while operating on Kelly he was still at risk. Although the door was locked there was nothing stopping a late caller doing as Mr Bowyer had done when he had discovered the body. Any such caller on receiving no answer on knocking the door could have gone to the broken windows and moved back the curtain. The killer would have been caught in the act with only one escape route possible.
It is my contention that the killer would have intended to spend a minimum amount of time in that room and would therefore have intended to leave at the earliest opportunity. I do not believe that he was working at a leisurely pace. He must have been aware of the precarious nature of his surroundings. As with the other mutilated victims he would have been working at speed to get the job done as soon as possible.
The police at the time believed that if they were to catch the killer in the act he would try to dispatch them while attempting to make good his escape. They were under no illusions on this matter. Kelly was to be the last victim in the series. Ripper author Martin Fido wrote: ‘I’ve never heard of a sexual serial killer whose last victim was his last by his own choice.’ This statement only adds to the evidence that Jack was not a sexual serial killer.
View from Commercial Streeet towards Dorset Street today. Kelly allegedly lived at the Providence Row Night Women’s Refuge and Convent (marked ‘P’) in Crispin Street, directly at the end of Dorset Street, when she first came to Spitalfields. The street line shown on the right (north) is located further back than the original old street line of 1888. The original street line was located approximately at the point marked with an ‘N’ shown on the photograph. The original street line on the left (south) would have been located several metres further back from the street line marked with an ‘S’. Crossinghams lodging house was located approximately opposite the arch on the right. Hutchinson stood at the entrance to this lodging house waiting for the suspect to leave Millers Court
Hutchinson went to the inquest two days after the murder and heard Sarah Lewis give evidence indicating that she had seen a stout man wearing a wide-awake hat, standing against Crossinghams lodging house opposite Millers Court at exactly 2.30am on the morning of the murder.
Hutchinson knew that he was on the same spot on the same morning. On realising that he had been seen by Sarah Lewis he went straight to the police after the inquest, and informed them that he was the man seen by Lewis. He also gave the reason why he was standing there at that time of the morning.
Hutchinson’s behaviour in following Kelly and the suspect is explained in the words of Inspector Abberline.
Dated 12th November 1888.
Metropolitan Police.
CID Scotland Yard.
I beg t
o report that an inquest was held this day at the Shoreditch Town Hall before W. MacDonald (Coroner) on the body of Marie Jeanette Kelly found murdered at No.13, Millers Court, Dorset Street, Spitalfields. A number of people were called who clearly established the identity of the deceased, the Coroner remarked that in his opinion it was unnecessary to adjourn the inquiry and the jury returned a verdict of Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown.
An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson, which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening and I am of the opinion that his statement is true. He informed me that he occasionally gave the deceased a shilling, and that he had known her for about three years, also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them. He can identify the man, and arrangements have been made for two officers to accompany him round the district for a few hours tonight with a view of finding the man if possible.
Hutchinson is at present in no regular employment and he has promised to go with an officer tomorrow morning at 11.30am to the Shoreditch Mortuary to identify the deceased. Several arrests have been made on suspects of being connected with the recent murders. But the various persons detained have been able to satisfactorily account for their movements and were released.
signed. F.G. Abberline.
Insp.
Supt.
T. Arnold.
Several reasons exist why the mutilations carried out on Kelly were more severe than those of the other four victims. I do not believe for a moment that the killer was getting psychologically bolder and experimenting with his mutilations as time progressed. Neither do I believe that the progressive mutilations implied that a complicated sexual condition was worsening with each murder and which ultimately culminated in Jack’s suicide.
Kelly’s murder was to be the last in the series. Therefore it is possible that as the grand finale Jack wished to leave an everlasting impression, hence a far greater shock impact was required. Kelly may have been more of a personal matter to Jack for she is the odd one out in many respects.
Another reason for the nature of Kelly’s murder may well have been certain occult beliefs held by the murderer. It may have been an accumulation of these reasons, which could explain the severity of Kelly’s mutilations. It is simply not true that he never had enough time with any of the other victims. In Mitre Square he could have worked all night long in one of the empty houses, or in the unused yard, or the passage that led into it. All were only a metre or so from where Eddowes was found.
Kelly’s territory was outside of the Ten Bells public house. She was also known to frequent Leman Street a lot. The competition in such a small area would have known each other. A witness, talking of Kelly, stated, ‘If another woman encroached on Kelly’s territory outside of the Ten Bells, then handfuls of hair would fly.’ All five victims lived so close together in such a small area that they must have been rubbing shoulders daily. Photographs of the time show the community in the East End in 1888 was very close knit. Everyone knew each other.
Assistant Commissioner Anderson stated, ‘The wretched victims belonged to a very small class of degraded women who frequent the East End after midnight.’ So the killer did not take his pick from 1,200 prostitutes but from a very small number who worked the early morning hours. Thus making the chances that they knew each other even greater. All professional people in such a small area know each other and prostitution is the oldest profession of all.
CHAPTER EIGHT
ANALYSIS OF THE DEATH SITES
TO RECAP, THE murder scenes were as follows:
Victim No. 1
The alcove in Bucks Row afforded good cover. In 1888 the entrance to the stable was narrower and deeper than in later years. The two original houses next to the old stables were demolished. The entrance to the stable was then widened to take in this lost space. The killer was in a position to spot anyone walking up from the Brady Street end. The same can be said of anyone walking from the direction of the board school. Because this murder took place in a public road, the killer knew he was at risk of being disturbed at work.
Victim No. 2
This victim was taken into the back yard of 29, Hanbury Street which afforded better cover than Bucks Row. Although it was a private yard and not patrolled by the police it was still a high-risk site. There were 17 people living at this address, any one of which could be getting up at the time of the murder (5.30am) to go to work. The yard was used by prostitutes and clients, another reason that the killer could have been disturbed.
John Richardson also checked the property for security 45 minutes prior to the murder. Also, there was only one way (not including jumping over garden fences) in and out of the building, and that was through the front door. This was still a risky site, although the killer had privacy to perform elaborate mutilations. Cadosch was only a few yards away when he heard the attack take place but he never bothered to put his head over the fence. Jack certainly was at risk of being disturbed on this site.
Victim No. 3
When compared to the other four sites, this site was the most dangerous for the killer in terms of activity. The many witness statements prove this point. People were coming and going to the Working Men’s Club, passing by in the street or just standing around. I believe that the precarious nature of this site was one reason for Jack only spending the minimum amount of time on this victim. This may explain why this victim was the least mutilated of the five. Of course he may have had no intention of mutilating Stride to begin with. It has been taken for granted that he intended to mutilate her. He was at great risk of being disturbed on this site.
Victim No. 4
This victim was found on the pavement in Mitre Square. Access into the square could be obtained from three different directions. She was found by a policeman who would have fallen over the killer if he had been at work. Yet this victim had mutilations which took several minutes to perform. He wanted the body to be found as soon as possible. If this had not been the case, the victim would have been left in the unused passage or in one of the empty houses, and may not have been found for a day or two. He was at risk on this site, which was a public square.
Victim No. 5
This victim was the only one to be killed under full cover, in the privacy of a room and had the largest number of post-mortem mutilations performed on her. This simply supports my belief that the time and cover factor on this murder was much greater than the others, hence the greater severity of the injuries. The killer also knew that Kelly was to be his final victim so he may have decided to create a lasting impression with this murder.
Each of these locations clearly came with risks attached, then. This suggests other motives other than simple convenience may have been in play here. On what other bases might the Ripper have chosen to carry out his work in these places? Why did the killer place himself at greater risk than necessary by committing murders in very precarious public places where the victims would be discovered within minutes? Why didn’t he commit the murders in places where the victims would not be found for days or possibly years or never?
The killer had no alternative but to kill the victims where they were found. He had an occult plan from which to work and to this end he had various factors to take into account. One was that the first four victims killed had to be placed east, north, south and west (in that order). He would pick up his victim on a main road and take her down a side road. Then he would kill her at a chosen spot off the side road. He could get back on to the main road near the site so he could mix in with other people.
This is one reason why all the murder sites are laid out in the same manner from the centre of Whitechapel Junction (see killer’s routes). In fact, the killer had to move two of the victims from their original planned sites because they were far too open and risky. However, these two victims were only moved a short distance to locations which afforded better cover.
The Victims’ Addresses
&nbs
p; Mary Anne Nichols (1845–88)
2–24 August 1888: 18, Thrawl Street.
24–30 August 1888: 56, Flower and Dean Street.
Annie Chapman (1841–88)
1886: 30, Dorset Street.
From May 1888: Mainly at Crossinghams, 35, Dorset Street.
Elizabeth Stride (1843–88)
1882: 32, Flower and Dean Street.
1886: Devonshire Street.
1885–88: 33, Dorset Street. September
1888: 32, Flower and Dean Street.
The Times, Thursday, 4 October 1888, reported on the resumed inquest on Stride. It wrote that Elizabeth Tanner, 32, Flower and Dean Street, stated that Stride had lived in Fashion Street at one time. The report added that Catherine Lane, 32, Flower and Dean Street, stated that at one time Stride had lived in Devonshire Street, Commercial Road. Lane stated that Stride had also lived in Fashion Street where she frequently went to visit her. The Times quoted Kidney as saying, ‘I live at 38, Dorset Street, Spitalfields, and am a waterside labourer. I have seen the body in the mortuary and it is that of a woman whom I lived with. I have no doubt whatever about it.’
For the last three years of her life, Stride had lived on and off with Michael Kidney. When away from Kidney she resided at 32, Flower and Dean Street. Kidney’s address has been generally accepted as 33, Dorset Street, Spitalfields. Author Donald Rumbelow wrote that Stride had been living in Fashion Street with Michael Kidney. Author Philip Sugden gave Kidney’s address as 35, Devonshire Street as reported in the Central News.