Miller's Court Murder - London 1888

Millers Court Murder - London 1888
Spedding 2008-2016
Background contemporary sketch of Dorset Street (London 1888)

is courtesy of Casebook: East End Photographs and Drawings
All we can say for sure about the scenario is that he met them, took their
lives, and left their mutilated bodies.
Martyn Conterio (2016) 1
Conterios quotation is similar to the one made by George Steevens in 1813. 2 It
was found when researching another work of ours on Shakespeares biography. 3
All that is known with any degree of certainty concerning Shakespere,
[sic] is that he was born at Stratford, married and had children there,
went to London, where he commenced actor, wrote poems and plays;
returned to Stratford, made his will, died, and was buried.
George Steevens (1813) 4
Conterio, Martyn. Diagnosis Ripper. Real Crime Magazine. Issue 8, 2016. Print.
Wikipedia contributors. "George Steevens." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2 Feb.
2016. Web. May. 2016.
3
Spedding. Homeless Shakespeare. His Fabricated Life from Cradle to Grave. 2015. Print.
4
Steevens, George., and Samuel Johnson. Plays of Shakspeare. London: J. Nichols & Son, 1813. Print.
2

Spedding 2008-2016
Our current thesis was worked on for eight years, though the collecting and studying
of the material had a fifteen-year expansion due to its concept, which was to
research an unsolved murder committed in London in the year 1888. The case
argues for critical analysis on many levels and they will be brought forward in this
work even though many documents could not be found, either because they were
destroyed, misplaced, stolen, or simply not deposited into the public domain for
reasons unknown.
We turned to the uncontaminated data gathered by retired Police Officer Stewart
P. Evans and professional researcher and genealogist Keith Skinner,
which
guided us through most of our research. Also consulted was a small majority of
newspapers that mostly had articles presented by experienced court reporters who
attended the murder inquest. These reporters undertook the burden to give the best
possible account of witness statements, which may not have been included in the
original inquest records. Two main newspaper sources were used:
Stephen Ryders Casebook: Press Reports
Papers Past from The National Library of New Zealand
Further sources of research used have been referenced either in footnotes and/or
within the text underlined in blue.
This work is for educational purposes only. Text is in accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107
(fair use) and distributed without profit. Images used are in the public domain; images not
deposited into the public domain have been attributed to their copyright owner, under the section
of fair use.
Evans, Stewart P., and Keith Skinner. The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook: An Illustrated Encyclopedia. London:
Constable & Robinson Ltd., 2000. Print.

Spedding 2008-2016
I
Critical thinking is the first skill to be invoked at the beginning of a case, and
continues through every phase of an analysis and interpretation. Too often, our
thinking is constricted by what we believe is true, by what we expect to be true, or
by commands from the god of productivity. The competent analyst will not sacrifice
thoughtfulness at any stage of his work.
Keith Inman (2001) 6
In 1988, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had its Criminal Investigative
Analysis Unit (CIAU) publish a particular study entitled: Jack the Ripper. The
analysis, amongst other points, wrote how with Jack the Ripper, the target
selection, the approach, the method of his initial attack, are his modus operandi.
What takes place after this is the ritual (FBI 1988). 7
Target selection The Millers Court murder case officially opened on a Friday
morning of the ninth day of November in 1888. According to the British Home Office,
the victim was believed to be a female prostitute named Kelly. 8 Some doubt to
the victims gender was raised at the time due to the extreme mutilation the body
had suffered, though none doubted she was an East End prostitute named Kelly.
Illustrated Police News
November 17, 1888.
As it lay on the bed it presented a ghastly spectacle, and so complete had been
the mutilation, that it was difficult to tell whether it was that of a man or woman.
Penny Illustrated Paper
November 17, 1888.
The body of Mary Kelly was so horribly hacked and gashed that, but for the long
hair, it was scarcely possible to say with any certainty that it was the body of a
woman lying entirely naked on the wretched bed, with legs outspread and drawn
up to the trunk.
Inspector Henry Moore 9 of the Criminal Investigation Department (C.I.D.) stationed

at Scotland Yard, almost a year after the murder, was interviewed by the press. He
publicly stated how the offender had cut the victims skeleton so clean of flesh,
6
Inman, Keith et al. Principles & Practice of Criminalistics: The Profession of Forensic Science. London: CRC Press LLC, 2001.
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Behavioral Science Unit. Criminal Investigative
Analysis. Subject Jack the Ripper. Web. Internet Archive. July 1988. Web. Jan 2015.
8
Home Office letter. Ref. HO 144/221/A49301F, ff. 78-9.
9
Wikipedia contributors. Henry Moore (police officer). Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free
Encyclopedia, 6 May. 2016. Web. May 2016.
7

Spedding 2008-2016
that when he arrived at the crime scene, he could hardly tell whether it was a man
or a woman (Pall Mall Gazette, Nov. 4. 1889).
It was not only police officials and reporters who doubted if the victim was a female.
Francis A. Harris was an instructor of Medical Jurisprudence in the Harvard Medical
School and Medical Examiner in the Suffolk County of Massachusetts. In 1894, he
put together an article, Death in its Medico-Legal Aspects, for contribution to the
first volume of Hamilton and Godkins work. The purpose of the latter work was to
prepare and gather special articles upon subjects, which most frequently arise in
court, and are usually neglected in treatises upon medical jurisprudence, or, at best,
are but superficially noticed (Hamilton and Godkin 1894).
10
The Millers Court
murder found its way into these special articles.

Death in its Medico-Legal Aspects
Contributor: Francis A. Harris, M.D.
1894
2. Sex.The distinction of sex where a whole un-mutilated corpse is presented for
inspection is too obvious to require comment. On the other hand, if the body is mutilated and
decomposed, great care is required on the part of the expert, and still further difficulties are
presented when it is the skeleton alone with which he has to deal. Indeed, there may be cases
where the whole body has been so mutilated that it is by the preparation of the skeleton alone
that an idea of the sex may be formed. Just such a case might have occurred in one of the socalled Whitechapel murders in London, in the years 1887-89. Here nine women were murdered
and mutilated by an unknown assassin. In the particular illustrative instance, the woman was
murdered in a bedroom. The body was naked when found.
The eyebrows, eyelids, ears, nose, lips, and chin had been cut off, and the face gashed
by numerous knife-cuts. The breasts had been cut off, and the whole abdominal parietes,
together with the external organs of generation, had been removed. The skin and much of the
muscular tissue, not, however, exposing the bone,
11
had been slashed away from the anterior
aspect of the thighs as far as the knees.

The abdominal viscera and pelvic viscera, including bladder, vagina, and uterus with
appendages, had been torn from their cavities, and in fact there was no sign of sex except the
long hair upon the head, and, as is well known, that alone is not a positive sign, inasmuch as in
some nations the hair is worn long by men. The fact that the whole bladder had been removed
did away with the help that might have been afforded by the presence of the prostate gland.
In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered about the
room,
10
12
and showed the sex without doubt. But if all the organs and parts had been taken away
Hamilton, McLane., and L. Godkin. A System of Legal Medicine. NY: Cooper Union, 1894. Vol. I. Preface. Print.
This observation can be debated. The well-known Millers Court crime scene photograph (MJK1) clearly depicts exposure
of the victims right femur after it was removed of muscular tissue and skin.
12
There is an ongoing debate amongst researchers if the heart was actually removed from the crime scene, supposedly by
the offender.
11

Spedding 2008-2016
or the body exposed to the effects of decomposition, a careful preparation of the skeleton would
have been imperative to decide that the body was that of a woman.
It might further be stated that in this case, in consequence of the hacking of the features,
the presence or absence of a beard could not be stated, and if the hair had been designedly cut
off, there would have been absolutely no sign by which sex could have been determined. The
hair on the pubes had been removed in this case, 13 and the difference in the growth of the pubic
hair -tapering up toward the umbilicus in the male, and simply surrounding the organs of
generation in the female, could not be availed of as an indication of sex.
We may argue today that Dr. Harris article on the subject of the Millers Court
victims gender may not have been necessary, since the well-known crime scene
photograph (MJK1) clearly depicts the body of a female. It therefore raises a
question as to why he would have put the time he did into writing about it. Notice
again what he wrote: . . .if all the organs and parts had been taken away, or if the
hair had been designedly cut off, the medical officers at the time would not have
been able to distinguished any sign by which sex could have been determined
(Harris 1894).
Now, we remind our readers what Inman said, which we gave at the beginning of
this section: Too often, our thinking is constricted by what we believe is true, by
what we expect to be true, or by commands from the god of productivity. The
competent analyst will not sacrifice thoughtfulness at any stage of his work (Inman
2001). It does look like Dr. Harris did not sacrifice thoughtfulness even though a
crime scene photograph depicted what was expected to be true.
Dr. Bagster Phillips (Metropolitan Police Surgeon) 14 was the leading medical officer
on the case. His official medical report has not surfaced into the public domain, but
when appearing at the inquest on November 12th, he told Coroner and Jury that
when he arrived at the crime scene he saw the mutilated remains of a female
15
thus indicating the victims gender as did the Westminster Police Surgeon, Thomas
Bond, within an Autopsy Report: Result of Post Mortem examination of body of
woman found in Dorset St. 16
CONFIRMED Millers Court victim was female.
13
This particular anatomical reference has not been reported on by an official medical officer.
Dr. Phillips was one of the oldest of the Metropolitan police surgeons, having been surgeon to the H-Division for more
than thirty years. The British Medical Journal. November 6, 1897 (p. 1379).
15
Dr. Phillips deposition, November 12, 1888: Ref. MJ/SPC, NE1888, Box 3, Case Paper 19.
16
Official Autopsy Report on the Millers Court victim: Ref. MEPO 3/3153, ff. 10-18.
14

Spedding 2008-2016
The approach an offender will take towards a victim

may be branched into two areas, and this is especially
important to consider in our case. One consideration
would be how the offender first encounters the victim,
which could either be in a public place or a private place.
The other consideration would be from which direction the offender initially attacks
the victim, and this could be from the front, from the side, or from behind.
FACT Considering how the offender first encountered the Millers Court victim has
been based on assumption instead of evidence. We explain.
Hutchinsons statement given on Nov 12th
Commercial Street Police Station (6 p.m.) 17
An acquaintance of the victim, a George Hutchinson, claimed

to have seen the deceased picked up by a client (for sexual
activity) on Friday, November 9th, at 02:00 a.m. Hutchinson
said he saw the couple walk up Millers Court passage but
failed to mention if they entered the crime scene (Room No. 13).
Hutchinsons suspect was not seen leaving the area and the police never found
him.
Neither
did
the
suspect
voluntarily
come
forward
to
clear
any
misunderstanding that could have been created at the time, which was singular. 18
Inspector Abberline who was in charge of the case, on the opening of the inquest,
reported his opinion in regards to Hutchinsons police statement and believed it to
be of a true account. It is uncertain if the Inspector remained steadfast to this
opinion, because the press quickly changed their minds.
Inspector Abberlines Report | extract

November 12, 1888. 19
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 opinion his statement is true.
17
Ref. MEPO 3/140, ff. 227-9.

Many silly people as they were termed by the press, used to accuse themselves of these murders asserting they were
Jack the Ripper mostly for the sake of getting arrested to sleep under a roof for the night with some scraps of food.
19
Inspector Abberlines Report: Ref. MEPO 3/140, ff. 230-2.
18

Spedding 2008-2016
The Star
November 15, 1888.
Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson, who said that on
Friday morning last he saw Kelly with a dark-complexioned, middle-aged, foreignlooking, bushy eye browed gentleman, with the dark moustache turned up at the
ends, who wore the soft felt hat, the long dark coat, trimmed with astrakhan, the
black necktie, with horseshoe pin, and the button boots, and displayed a massive
gold watch-chain, with large seal and a red stone attached.
Hutchinson was not officially recorded as attending the inquest as a witness; some
members of the press however mentioned he did attend and he did give testimony
before Coroner and Jury. A small group of researchers have brushed this aside as
being an error on the reporting part. We could not verify.
Evening Gazette
November 14, 1888.
The hopes of the police of catching the Whitechapel murderer, which had almost
entirely died out, were raised to the acme of buoyancy yesterday in consequence
of the testimony at the Kelly inquest of George Hutchinson, a groom, who had
known the victim for some years, and who saw her with a male companion shortly
before 2 oclock on the morning of the murder.
At the time of his police statement, Hutchinson was a lodger at the Victoria
Workingmens Home, situated at 39-41, Commercial Street.
20
He told the
authorities he knew the deceased for 3 years and was certain it was her he saw in
the early hours of November 9th at 02:00 a.m. being picked up by a well-dressed
man. The press added Hutchinson told them his suspect was of Jewish
appearance and a foreigner; descriptions most likely born out of prejudice.
Hutchinson follows the victim as a foreigner picks her up
Courtesy of Famous Crimes (1903)
Hutchinsons police statement

About 2 a.m. [on November] 9th, I was coming by
Thrawl Street, Commercial Street, and saw, just before
I got to Flower & Dean Street, I saw the murdered
woman Kelly. And she said to me, Hutchinson, will you
lend me sixpence. I said I cant I have spent all my
money going down to Romford. 21 She said good morning, I must go and find some money.
She went away toward Thrawl Street.
20
21
Higginbotham, Peter. The Workhouse. Web. Workhouses. Web. 2016. <http://www.workhouses.org.uk>

Romford from London: 12 miles (20 kilometers).

Spedding 2008-2016
We do not hear from Hutchinson that the time (02.00 a.m.) or the request (lend me
sixpence) was out of the ordinary for this prostitute. Inspector Abberline must have
questioned him about it, because the Inspector wrote in his brief report that
Hutchinson informed him he had occasionally given the deceased a few shillings.
Neither do we hear from Hutchinson if he found it curious enough to ask the victim
why she had to find some money, whilst it was raining, 22 at 02:00 a.m.
It should be remembered though, researcher Sugden noted, that the fact that
strange men, with or without women, were seen about Dorset Street in the
nocturnal hours is of no significance in itself. The street consisted almost entirely of
common lodging houses (Sugden 1994). 23
It may very well be, that this was not the first time Hutchinson saw the victim
searching for money and clients in the early hours of the morning.
Hutchinsons police statement contd A man, coming in the opposite
direction to Kelly, tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her. They
both burst out laughing.
We see here a reversal of roles, which is not only seen in this case. All eyewitness
accounts record a man pick up a ripper victim just before their murder. The only
exception would be in the Nichols murder. Jack didnt need to do much to find a
prostitute really. They were everywhere. Chances are, they approached him. In
their sizzled state of mind and desperation for money, their willingness to go off into
a discreet and dark corner for a quickie against a wall, even during the Rippers
reign, highlights how little they cared for their personal safety and how eager they
were to take up any offer (Conterio 2016).
Perhaps in the real world an opposite action of what Hutchinson described would
have happened, where the prostitute picks up the client; even more so in Kellys
case, since she was determined to go out in the rain to find some money at 2
oclock in the morning. The Jack the Ripper victims were targeted because they
were readily accessible. Jack the Ripper did not have to initiate the contact. This
was done for him by the prostitute (FBI 1988).
22
Casebook: WEATHER CONDITIONS for the Nights of the Whitechapel Murders: In the early hours of November 9, 1888,
there was rain. A mild drizzle continued in the morning till 11 a.m. then overcast. Lunar phase: Waxing crescent with 37% of
the moons visible disk illuminated. <http://www.casebook.org/victorian_london/weather.html>
23
Sugden, Philip. The Complete History of Jack the Ripper. Robinson Publishing Ltd., 1994. Print.

Spedding 2008-2016
It is doubtful the victim would have been approached by Hutchinsons

suspect; it may well have been the victim approached the suspect instead. Why
Hutchinson would describe an opposite action, comes from human weakness. We
all favour a victim, in any possible way, even if it means misinforming.
But what could have been said in that moment between victim and potential client
to produce this burst of laughter, we are not told. This tapping on the shoulder,
researchers Mosley and Nelson believed, such an act of familiarity, followed by
Kellys friendly laughter, was undoubtedly conducted by a regular customer,
someone she knew well, and not a hitherto unknown client (Mosley and Nelson
2015). 24 These researchers put forward a good point, but there is strong suspicion
that Hutchinsons account was far from being true.
Hutchinsons police statement contd I heard her say alright to him. And
the man said you will be alright for what I have told you. He then placed his
right hand around her shoulders. He also had a kind of a small parcel in his
left hand with a kind of strap round it. [A common article the people of
Whitechapel decided the ripper carried.] I stood against the lamp of the [Ten
Bell -as seen in the original document] Queens Head Public House and
watched him. They both then came past me and the man hid down his head
with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face. He
looked at me stern.
Individuals seen at the time who held parcels and bags were quickly chased away
from neighbourhood areas; especially if seen stalking the areas in the early morning
hours. There is no information to suggest Hutchinson tried to chase away this
suspect or find a Constable or dash into the temporary Police Station that had been
set up a few yards away from where the crime was committed.
Evening Gazette
November 10, 1888.
The killing was done in a room fronting on the street, on the ground floor, and within
a few yards of a temporary police station, whence officers issued hourly to patrol
the district.
24
Mosley, Tim., and Scott Nelson. The Pick-Up Shtick. Ripperologist No. 146, October 2015. Print.

Spedding 2008-2016
10
The Queens Head pub was about 100-110 meters or so from where the suspect
first tapped this prostitute on the shoulder. Hutchinson did not say the couple moved
from that spot as he himself must have turned away from them to walk the short
distance (1 minute and 20 seconds) to reach the Queens Head pub. He must have
taken at least 70 or 80 footsteps further away from the couple.
In the original document of Hutchinsons police statement, the Ten Bells pub is
crossed out (deleted) and substituted with the Queens Head pub. If Hutchinson
had indeed stood outside the Ten Bells as he first voiced to the police, he would
not have been able to describe his suspect with any clarity as he stooped down
and looked him in the face.
The police either reminded him of the distances correcting his statement, or
Hutchinson didnt really know the area he was talking of.
Hutchinsons police statement contd They both went into Dorset Street; I
followed them. They both stood at the corner of the Court for about 3 minutes.
He said something to her. She said alright my dear come along, you will be
comfortable. He then placed his arm on her shoulder and gave her a kiss. She
said she had lost her handkerchief; he then pulled his handkerchief, a red one,

Spedding 2008-2016
11
out and gave it to her. They both then went up the Court together. I then went
to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about
three quarters of an hour to see if they came out; they did not, so I went away.
END OF STATEMENT
Area where Hutchinson saw his suspect
give the victim a red handkerchief.
No police report has mention if the red handkerchief

(given by suspect to victim) was ever found at the crime
scene; but the article itself is interesting.
A red handkerchief was noticed on another suspect, in the
Eddowes murder, when on November 10th, just one day
after the Millers Court murder, The Telegraph told the
public that on October 26th, Scotland Yard had secretly
circulated descriptions of persons that had been seen with Stride and Eddowes
prior their deaths. Within one of these descriptions is a red handkerchief. It looks
as though the description was secretly given to the police by a witness called
Lawende and kept under the radar. It was however released earlier in October.
APPREHENSIONS SOUGHT
MURDER
METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT 25
The woodcut sketches, purporting to resemble the persons last seen with
the murdered women, which have appeared in the Daily Telegraph, were
not authorized by Police. The following are the descriptions of the persons
seen:At 12.35 a.m., 30th September, with Elizabeth Stride, found murdered at 1
a.m., same date, in Berner Street -A MAN, age 28, height 5 ft. 8 in.,
complexion dark, small dark moustache; dress, black diagonal coat, hard
felt hat, collar and tie; respectable appearance. Carried a parcel wrapped up
in newspaper.
At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner Street -A MAN, age about
30, height 5 ft. 5 in., complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full
25
Police Gazette, October 19, 1888.

Spedding 2008-2016
12
face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.
Information to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Police Office, Great Scotland
Yard London, S.W.
At 1.35 a.m., 30th September, with Catherine Eddows, [sic] in Church
Passage, leading to Mitre Square, where she was found murdered at 1.45
a.m., same date -A MAN, age 30, height 5 ft. 7 or 8 in., complexion fair,
moustache fair, medium build; dress, pepper-and-salt colour loose jacket,
grey cloth cap with peak of same material, reddish neckerchief tied in knot;
appearance of a sailor.
Information to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Police Office, Great
Scotland-yard, London, S.W.
It is quite clear from his police statement, that Hutchinson did not see the deceased
and suspect enter Room No. 13; it was only assumed this suspect was the last
person to see the victim alive, which automatically tagged him her killer. But this
was not evidence; it was speculation of the worse kind and would have been a
spark to get an innocent man accused of murder most foul.
As we move along, our readers will notice that the official data contradicts
Hutchinsons account; he miscalculated certain elements of his story, and this was
logical to have happened. Hutchinson had no inside information of medical or police
reports to build his story upon; he relied on witness testimony coming out of the
inquest and neighbourhood chatterboxes.
The Echo
November 13, 1888.
No one else can be found to say that a man of that description [Hutchinson] given
was seen with the deceased, while, of course, there is the direct testimony of the
witnesses at the inquest, that the person seen [Coxs suspect] with the deceased
at midnight was of quite a different appearance.
Hutchinson perhaps made two mistakes. The first would be when he portrayed his
suspect as being a foreigner of Jewish appearance to the press; prejudice was
ripe at the time and most if not all officials and community believed the ripper to
have been a foreigner. But Hutchinson could not have known if the killer was
actually foreign, as he never mentioned the mans accent. All he gave was a
prejudice description. The second mistake was saying to the press that his suspect
appeared incapable of attacking another man: The man I saw did not look as

Spedding 2008-2016
13
though he would attack another one (The Star, Nov. 14. 1888). As far as the
community was concerned, including Hutchinson, the ripper only killed prostitute
women. But Hutchinson could not have known how the killer would have reacted to
a witness who could describe him with such detail.
Willingly or not, Hutchinson injected a killer who would not retaliate against a male
witness who could identify him, and so blocked any doubt someone would have
had for his personal safety. This secured his story long enough to assist the police
in their search for his suspect, and consequently receive a reward, including
payment for his story to the press. Whatever the intentions beyond that, Hutchinson
created enough time for the real offenders trail to go cold.
Hutchinsons story produces an interesting element if anything else, and that is the
con approach, which is explained by Turvey (2012). 26
The con approach is characterized by an offender who gets close to a victim by
use of deception or subterfuge. (This discussion adapted from Burgess and
Hazelwood, 1995, p.142.)
A con can involve a simple ploy to momentarily divert attention, such as a casual
question or request for assistance that allows the offender to get physically close
enough to overpower the victim.
It can also involve a more complex scheme whereby the offender obtains the
victims immediate and prolonged trust, in order to move the victim to a secondary
location, to gain access to a particular location or area, or to obtain the victims
compliance.
The term con approach describes the approach only and does not suggest a
particular method of attack. Depending on the complexity of the con, this method
of approach requires criminal confidence, planning, and experience in order to be
implemented without raising the victims suspicion. It is not a method of approach
used by a criminal novice.
Hutchinsons motive seems to flow towards the various rewards for the capture of
Jack the Ripper -circulating since October. And one such reward was still hanging
next to Millers Court at the time of the murder.
November 17, 1888.
The most curious item in the entire surroundings is a large placard posted on the
walls of the next house to one where the murder was committed [Millers Court]
26
Turvey, Brent E. Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis. Fourth Edition. Forensic Solutions, LLC.
USA: Elsevier, 2012. Print.

Spedding 2008-2016
14
offering, in the name of the Illustrated Police News, a reward of POUNDS 100 for
the discovery of the diabolical assassin.
Additionally, contemporary researchers have dug up how Hutchinson was paid the
equivalent of a months wages by the police for his help in searching for his Ripper
suspect; he was also paid by the press for his story (Marriott 2013). 27
UNCONFIRMED No actual evidence can corroborate George Hutchinson seeing
the victim picked up by a foreigner on November 9th at 02:00 a.m.
Mary Ann Cox (Room No. 5, Millers Court)
Sketch: Courtesy of Pictorial News, Nov. 17. 1888. 28
Police statement | Inquest testimony 29
A prostitute named Mary Ann Cox claimed she saw the victim
on Thursday, November 8th, at 11:45 p.m. in the company of
a man who she believed was a client for sexual activity. Cox
saw both victim and client enter the crime scene (Room No.
13) where the mutilated remains were found. Coxs suspect
was not seen leaving the crime scene, and the police never
found him; neither did he voluntarily come forward to clear any misunderstanding
that could have been created at the time.
Cox was the fourth witness to give a police statement and appear in that order at
the inquest. She told of knowing the victim for 8 months, since March.
[Police] Statement of Mary Ann Cox, No 5 room, Millers Court, Dorset Street Spitalfields.
I am a widow and an unfortunate. I have known the female occupying No 13 room
Millers Court about 8 months. I knew her by the name of Mary Jane. About a
quarter to twelve last night [November 8th] I came into Dorset Street from
Commercial Street, and I saw walking in front of me Mary Jane with a man. They
turned into the Court, and as I entered the Court they went in doors.
As they were going into her room, I said goodnight Mary Jane, she was very drunk
and could scarcely answer me, but said goodnight. The man was carrying a quart
can of beer. I shortly afterwards heard her singing. I went out shortly after twelve
and returned about one oclock and she was still singing in her room. I went out
again shortly after one oclock and returned at 3 oclock; there was no light in her
room then and all was quiet, and I heard no noise all night.
27
Marriott, Trevor. Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files. Kindle Edition, 2013. Print.
Ripperologist, No. 133, August 2013.
29
Mary Ann Coxs police statement: Ref. MJ/SPC, NE1888, Box 3, Case Paper 19.
28

Spedding 2008-2016
15
The man whom I saw was about 36-years-old, about 5ft. 5in. in high, [sic]
complexion fresh and I believe he had blotches on his face, small side whiskers,
and a thick carroty moustache, dressed in shabby dark clothes, dark overcoat and
black felt hat. Mary Jane was dressed I think, that night when I saw her, in a
Lindsey frock, red knitted crossover around shoulders, had no hat or bonnet on.
Description of Coxs suspect

Gender:
Male
Age:
36
Height:
5ft. 5in.
Build:
No mention
Features: Fresh complexion with blotches on his face

Small side-whiskers
Thick carroty moustache
Clothes:
Shabby dark clothes and dark overcoat
Headwear: Black felt hat

Other:
Held a quart can of beer
Before the door of Room No. 13 closed, Cox noticed the man accompanying the
victim held a quart can of beer. Pubs closed at midnight and therefore according
to some reporters, inquiries were made at the local pubs, but no man answering
the description given by Cox entered any tavern in the immediate neighbourhood
and took away beer (The Star, Nov. 13. 1888).
Daily Telegraph
November 14, 1888.
With regard to the statement of Mrs. Cox, that she saw a man who carried a pot of
beer enter, with the deceased, her room in Millers Court on the morning of the
murder, no can has been found, and inquiry has failed to discover any publican
who served Kelly or her companion with beer on the night of Thursday.
Before Hutchinson came forward, Coxs suspect was placed in the major league as
being the offender. The well-known Inspector Walter Dew, who captured Crippen,
and was a Detective Constable at the time, supported this; he was also amongst
the first police officers to arrive at the Millers Court crime scene. For the first time,
D.C. Dew reported, something really tangible to work upon. We knew what the
man we were after looked like. We knew the kind of clothes he wore and, most
important of all, we knew that he was bearded (Dew 1938).
30
Dew, Walter. I Caught Crippen. London: Blackie & Son, Ltd., 1938. Print.
30
It is questionable

Spedding 2008-2016
16
how the Detective Constable did not contemplate the beard could have been false,
because the press reported Cox did not mention the man she saw was bearded.
Most importantly, from the moment D.C. Dew supported Coxs account, he
automatically contradicted Hutchinsons which was supported by Inspector
Abberline.
Daily Telegraph
November 13, 1888.
CORONER The chin was shaven?
COX
Yes. A lamp faced the door.
Principal evidence was that of Mary Ann Cox, residing in Millers Court, who
described a man she had seen entering the Court with the deceased. It is stated
that the police attach weight to her description, and will circulate it in the usual
manner.
Following is a comparison of the description between Coxs suspect and Schwartzs

suspect who was seen with Elizabeth Stride on September 30th before she was
found murdered. C.I. Swanson was more in favour to this suspect as being
Elizabeth Strides killer.
Mary Ann Cox description
Schwartz description
Man in company with Kelly Nov. 8th (11:45 Man harassing Stride Sept 30th (0:45 a.m.)
p.m.) Milers Court.
Berner Street.
Age: 36
Age: 30s
Height: 5ft. 5in.
Height: 5ft. 5in.
Features: Fresh complexion, blotchy face Features: Fair complexion, full face with
with small side whiskers and thick (full) small brown moustache and dark hair
carroty moustache
Build: Stout (Inquest testimony)
Build: Broad shoulders
Victim accompanied by Coxs suspect

Nov. 8. 1888. 11:45 p.m.
A question can be raised at this point. Did Hutchinson know

Coxs suspect to such an extent which would have him come
forward to clear him by injecting a well-dressed suspect of
Jewish appearance picking up the victim for sexual activity
at 02:00 a.m.? In order to answer this, we would need to
know Hutchinsons connection with Coxs suspect, which today is not only
impossible to ascertain, but is out of the question to research since her suspect was

Spedding 2008-2016
17
never found. As to the pot itself, no trace of it was found at the crime scene; nor of
the pewter in the ashes of the grate (Daily Telegraph, Nov. 13. 1888). Another
report gave an obvious resolution of what could have happened to the pot:
The Echo
November 13, 1888.
In the lowest parts of the East End, as in other districts of ill-repute, it is the practice
of women of the unfortunate class to take beer home with them at night, and then
place the cans outside their doors. These are collected by pot-men in the morning.
Inquiries are now being made by Inspector Moore, Inspector Beck, and Detective
Sergeant Thicke as to whether any pot-man in the district collected a can from
outside Kellys room.
The reporters never followed up on this pot-men investigation and we find no

police report answering to its result.
Another peculiarity here is what Cox did not say, and that is, she did not tell the
police how the victim opened the door to Room No. 13. The witness should have
said something about this, because the key to the door had been missing for some
time, always according to the former boyfriends tale. But Barnett did not give this
information in his written statement or inquest testimony. It was Inspector Abberline,
testifying after Coxs testimony saying, I was informed by the witness Barnett, that
the key has been missing for some time and that they opened the door by reaching
through the window.
So Cox did not know about this small detail of the missing key, nor did she know
how the victim and Barnett used to open the door, because if the key was indeed
missing prior the murder, Cox would have mentioned seeing the victim reaching
through the broken window to open the door; it would have been an unusual action,
and would have made an impression, as did the victims singing.
We may argue no key would have been necessary, or for any arm reaching through
a broken window, if the victim had only pulled the door shut (without bolting it) when
she left to find a client before the pubs closed. Witness testimony however would
demolish this argument, because various articles, that did not belong to the victim
and specifically left in her charge by Maria Harvey, would not have allowed the
victim to leave the door unbolted.

Spedding 2008-2016
18
Maria Harveys deposition | extract

November 12, 1888. 31
I left an overcoat, two [mens] dirty cotton shirts, a boys shirt and a
girls white petticoat, and black crape bonnet [with black strings] in the
room; the overcoat shown me by [the] police is the one I left there.
Two points to consider before continuing. The first would be how a stranger
offender will need to secure two elements before committing a crime -more so for
the maniac killer in Whitechapel- a point of entry to the crime scene, and a point
of exit from it. Not self-guaranteeing these elements will endanger the stranger
offenders success in gaining entrance and fleeing the scene undetected.
Since the crime scene was where the victim lived, unless the offender had previous
knowledge of the area and its surroundings, it was imperative to secure easy entry
and safe exit. More importantly, the stranger offender would not allow their person
to be seen either entering the crime scene or exiting it. This alone points a finger to
those false statements that claim to have seen some stranger enter the crime
scene.
Another point to consider would be a known offender to the victim, who would not
need to secure an entrance and exit from the crime scene, since the area and its
surroundings is already known to them. However, the known offender would also
safeguard their person from being seen entering or exiting the crime scene. If
someone saw the known offender either enter or leave, then the timeframe of when
the victim was last seen alive would need to be manipulated by the offender and/or
those who support the known offenders story.
Keep the above two points in mind as we continue. Two people claimed to have
seen some man gain access to the area by accompanying the victim; one claim
was for 11:45 p.m. and another was for some hours later at 02:00 a.m. They did
not see the same man exit from the area. If we did not have these doubtful witness
accounts to falsely rely upon, the following is what we are left with.
The authorities tell Coroner and Jury the door to the room was locked because the
key had been missing some time before the murder. Who gave this information to
the police? The former boyfriend, Joseph Barnett. He does not say this at his
31
Ref. MJ/SPC, NE1888, Box 3, Case Paper 19.

Spedding 2008-2016
19
inquest appearance and neither is it recorded as being said to the police when
interviewed at the Police Station on November 9th. He must have given this story
to Inspector Abberline during a private conversation some time after 1:30 p.m. on
November 9th since the door was forced open with a pickaxe at that time.
Would a stranger offender know the doors key was missing which would cause
difficulty for entrance and exit from the room? No. A stranger offender would not
have known the doors key was missing. Based upon this level of criminal analysis,
should the offender have used the door, then the attacker was not a stranger to the
victim. The other entrance and exit would be the three windowpanes that had been
broken, again prior the murder. Presumption predicts, even for the stranger
offender, the broken windows would be available for entrance and exit.
At the inquest, Cox didnt change her story when standing before Coroner and Jury,
but changed the description of her suspect and added some new information.
Around 06:15 a.m., Cox said she heard someone, specifically a man go out of the
Court, but could not say who he was. It might have been a policeman for all
witness knew (The Times, Nov. 13. 1888). It could not however have been the man
she saw in the company of the victim the previous night at 11:45 p.m. because his
shoes, according to the press, made no noise as he walked up Millers Court.
Cox, who had been described as a wretched looking specimen of East End
womanhood (The Star, Nov. 12. 1888), made quite a few changes at the inquest
in regards to the suspect she saw; recognition details were either not mentioned
and/or added. Taking from both statements, here is how Cox described the suspect
she saw in the company of the victim on Thursday night (November 8th) enter
Room No. 13:
Description of Mary Ann Coxs suspect
Gender:
Male
Age:
No mention (police statement had the age at 36)
Height:
Short (police statement had exact measurements at 5ft. 5in.)
Build:
Stout (police statement had no mention of suspects build)
Features: Clean shaven (police statement mentioned fresh complexion)

Blotchy face
Full carroty moustache (police statement mentioned small side
whiskers)
Clothes:
Shabbily dressed; very shabby dark longish coat

Spedding 2008-2016
20
Headwear: Hard billycock hat (police statement mentioned black felt hat)
Other:
Held a pot of ale (police statement mentioned quart can of beer)
Did the landlord, Jack (or John) McCarthy see the man Cox is supposed to have
seen accompany the victim into Room No. 13? Because the latter had to walk right
past the front door of his shop in order to get to her room (Rule 2010),
32
and
McCarthy could not have missed seeing the couple, including Cox for that matter,
he should have mentioned it to the police or at the inquest. However, he said
nothing of seeing any of these individuals on November 8th and/or November 9th.
UNCONFIRMED There is no evidence that can verify Cox saw the victim enter the
crime scene with a client on November 8th at 11:45 p.m.
Regarding which direction the offender took to attack the Millers Court victim, this
subject will be dealt with in detail further on, but it can be mentioned here that it was
termed inconclusive by the medical officers in the case, even though two
approaches were medically suggested.
Profile Report | extract
November 10, 1888. 33
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.
Method of initial attack No medical report on the case actually stresses the point
how the Millers Court victims throat had been cut from right to left, which was in a
different direction from how the previous canonical ripper victims throats had
been cut, which was from left to right.
Autopsy Report | extract
November 10, 1888.
The wall by the right side of the bed and in a line with the neck was
marked by blood, which had struck it in a number of separate splashes.
The wall mentioned was an interior door that had been nailed up at the time by the
landlord. This had a result of blocking any means of escape for tenants who
couldnt afford to pay their rent (Rule 2010). There was no mention in the medical
32
33
Rule, Fiona. The Worst Street in London. Surrey: Ian Allan Publishing, 2010. Print.
Ref. HO 144/221/A49301C, ff. 220-3.

Spedding 2008-2016
21
reports if a trail had been noticed caused by this volume of splashes; gravity would
have blood go down the wall to pool underneath the splashes on the floor. The one
rule that is always in effect with blood is that gravity works. Blood runs down, only
going in a different direction if acted upon by another force. Again, blood runs down,
never horizontal (Chisum and Turvey 2007). 34
Dr. John Rees Gabe (gynecologist and pediatrician) had been called to the crime
scene. He never mentioned seeing arterial blood on the wall, but did tell reporters
the victims throat had been cut from left to right (Evening Gazette, Nov. 12. 1888),
which would have arterial blood seen towards the victims left. Dr. Gabe however
did not point this out. Neither did Dr. Phillips mention seeing arterial blood on the
wall, but did concur the direction of the cut was from right to left.
Dr. Phillips deposition | extract
November 12, 1888.
. . .the large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated
condition of the palliasse, pillow, sheet, at the top corner nearest the
partition, leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right
carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of her 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. Phillips described seeing a large quantity of blood under the bedstead but not
under the splashes that Dr. Bond saw on the wall. The latter will corroborate the
formers medical evidence in the Autopsy Report: The bed clothing at the right
corner was saturated with blood, and on the floor beneath was a pool of blood
covering about 2 feet square.
Leaving aside for a moment what was seen and by whom, the problem these
medical officers faced in the Millers Court case was a simple one.
If the throat had been cut from left to right (as Dr. Gabe reported) it would have
coincided with how the ripper directed the knife on his previous victims; but in the
Millers Court murder, being there would have been no room for the offender to
stand on the right side of the bed, it would have the offender being a left-handed
individual, and this was something the authorities took great pains to correct with
Dr. Rees Ralph Llewellyns medical evidence on the Nichols case.
34
Chisum J., and B. Turvey. Staged Crime Scenes. London: Academic Press, 2007. Print.

Spedding 2008-2016
22
On the other hand, if the throat had been cut from right to left, it would have been
contrary to how the ripper usually directed the knife. We cannot disclose today
however that the offender might have been ambisinistral, which would at least
vindicate Dr. Llewellyns medical findings that a left-handed individual committed
the Nichols murder.
At the time, the Millers Court medical evidence must have created a major stir of
opinion to how the police viewed the offenders operation, being this murder
showed a 180-degree shift in the rippers modus operandi. It may even have been
discussed at the conference between Dr. Phillips and the Under-Secretary of the
Home Office, Mr. Charles Stuart-Wortley (1st Baron Stuart of Wortley), on the
evening of November 9th.
Daily Telegraph
November 10, 1888. | Referenced in Evans and Skinner 2000, p. 382
During the course of last evening, Dr. G. B. Phillips visited the House of Commons,
where he had a conference with the Under-Secretary of the Home Office, Mr.
Stuart-Wortley.
Since the approach was inconclusive either way, and Dr. Bonds arterial splashes
defied gravity, the subject must be placed today in doubt; even more so by
something Thomas Bond will refer to in a profile report he had been requested to
commit to paper.
Profile Report (1888) | extract
November 10, 1888.
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 womans 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.
Because Dr. Bond wrote the attacks were probably so sudden and made in such
a position that the women could neither resist nor cry out, with the Millers Court
victim, he inferred a sheet may have been used over her face so she was unable
to resist or cry out. Should this have been the case, it is very logical to suggest that
the sheet would have protected the wall from any arterial blood spatter. We shall
return to this subject further on in our work.

Spedding 2008-2016
23
The above elements (target, approach, method) cover the offenders modus
operandi; what takes place after this is the ritual (FBI 1988). The mutilation the
Millers Court victims body suffered was partial dismemberment of the limbs, partial
decapitation, extract of internal organs, and the face hacked beyond recognition of
the features (Profile Report 1888).
Apart from rare cases of necrophilia, the victim of dismemberment is always a
victim of homicide. Homicides ending with corpse dismemberment are most
commonly committed by a person close to, or at least acquainted with the victim
and they are performed at the site of homicide, generally in the place inhabited by
the victim, the perpetrator or shared by both.
Tomasz Konopka (2007) 35
Published by Alexandre Lacassagne (1899) 36
Have you seen this heart? Carla Valentine is currently

Assistant Technical Curator of Barts Pathology Museum
in London. She notes in a recent interview: Keyhole
surgery is used where possible today, but in Victorian
times, easy access to the heart would have meant sawing
through the sternum (breastbone) with a surgeons bone
saw. This was evidently not what happened in the case of Mary Kelly, whose heart
was removed from under the ribcage (Valentine 2016). 37
Earlier in this work, we gave our readers an article coming from Dr. Harris; he gave
his opinion in regards to the victims heart, and if it was missing from the crime
scene or not: In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found
scattered about the room (Harris 1894). Five years later, Alexandre Lacassagne
(French physician and criminologist)
38
told his readers that the heart had been
placed on the left thigh of the victim.

The governments favourite newspaper reported the heart had been placed on the
small wooden table next to the bed (The Times, Nov. 10. 1888), whilst other
newspaper articles reported it had been found lying on the hard ground (Journal
de Geneve, Nov. 13. 1888).
35
Corpse dismemberment in the material collected by the Department of Forensic Medicine, Cracow, Poland. Konopka,
Tomasz et al. Legal Medicine, Vol. 9, Issue 1, 1-13. Web. May 2016. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov>
36
Lacassagne, Alexandre. Vacher lEventreur et les Crimes Sadiques. Paris: Masson et Cie Editeurs, 1899. Print.
37
Referenced in Conterios Diagnosis Ripper. Real Crime Magazine, Issue 8. 2016. Print.
38
Wikipedia contributors. "Alexandre Lacassagne." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2
Apr. 2016. Web. May. 2016.

Spedding 2008-2016
24
Dr. Gabe mentioned to the press he saw the victims heart had been placed
carefully beside the mutilated trunk (QuAppelle Progress, Nov. 16. 1888).
The account written in the Autopsy Report was that the heart was absent from the
Pericardium, easily misinterpreted as being absent from the crime scene. A point
that had been raised by author Karyo Magellan, is worth mentioning.
Had the heart been examined there would certainly have been comment on it with
respect to contraction of the ventricles or absence of blood. Every other major
organ was accounted for in Bonds report with the exception of the heart.
Karyo Magellan (2007)
39
But we cannot rely upon such methods as Magellan suggests, because Dr. Bond
neither mentioned examining the brain and we have no evidence to suggest the
brain was taken -supposedly by the offender- just because there was no mention
of its examination at the post-mortem.
UNCONFIRMED There is no evidence pro or against that could certify the heart of
the Millers Court victim was taken, presumably by the offender.
But if the heart was missing, it tends to lean towards a crime of passion or a ritual
murder than anything else. In any event, the taking of the victims heart certainly
went beyond the modus operandi of Jack the Ripper at the time.
Other internal organs There were some medical and journalist reports that gave
information of what body remains from the victim were found within the room which
were removed at 4:00 p.m. as the body was transferred to the Shoreditch Mortuary,
situated behind Shoreditch Church (The Echo, Nov. 10. 1888). The photographer,
who had been called in to photograph the crime scene, removed his camera from
the premises at 4:30 p.m., and shortly afterwards, a detective officer carried from
the house a pail, with which he left in a four-wheel cab. The pail with internal organs
was covered with a newspaper, and taken to Dr. Phillips house.
The Central News at the time stated upon indisputable authority that no internal
organ was missing. Other reports went along the lines that the medical officers
managed to account for every portion of the body and the various pieces were
sewn together and placed in a coffin.
40
Yet, other reporters persisted on good
authority that some internal organs were missing.

39
40
Magellan, Karyo. Part II: The Whitechapel Murders - Autopsies and Surgeons. Ripperologist No. 76, Feb. 2007. Print.
(a) Pall Mall Gazette, November 12, 1888; (b) The Times, November 12, 1888.

Spedding 2008-2016
25
Daily Telegraph
November 13, 1888.
We are enabled to state, on good authority, that notwithstanding all that has been
said to the contrary, a portion of the bodily organs was missing. The police, and
with them the divisional surgeon, have arrived at the conclusion that it is in the
interest of justice not to disclose the details.
UNCONFIRMED We could not confirm if any internal organ was taken from the
crime scene, presumably by the offender.

Spedding 2008-2016
26
II
Unless the Whitechapel scandal is cleared up before November and the
Government unloads Mr. [Henry] Matthews [Secretary of State for the Home
Office] he is likely to be condemned by a majority so heavy as to discredit
and destroy the whole Ministry.
New York Times, October 7, 1888.
Date of discovery The official record shows the Millers Court crime was reported
to the police on Friday morning, November 9th. The victims mutilated body lay on
a double sized bed in a room numbered 13 situated in Millers Court, also known
as McCarthys Court named after the landlord of the establishment of 26, Dorset
Street, Spitalfields.
Though the press reported a temporary Police Station in the area had been setup
prior the murder, no case report from this station has found its way into the public
domain. But should the following article prove correct, perhaps files from the case
may have been placed in this station, to which today its location is unknown: The
killing was done in a room fronting on the street, on the ground floor, and within a
few yards of a temporary police station, whence officers issued hourly to patrol the
district (Evening Gazette, Nov. 10. 1888).
Room No. 13 Whatever portrayal exists of the crime scene and its surroundings
comes from newspaper reports and memorandum.
The Times
November 10, 1888.
. . .a very poorly furnished apartment, about 12 ft. square, there being only an old
bedstead, two old tables and a chair in it.
Evening Gazette
November 12, 1888.
Dr. Gabe: . . .an oil stove, two rickety chairs and a squalid bedstead, at the head
of which was a piece of looking glass, such as one buys in Petticoat Lane for a half
penny.
The Star
November 12, 1888.
The walls were papered, but the pattern could hardly be traced for the dirt which
covered it, and the floor boards were bare and filthy. There were two windows,
both on the same side of the passage, and in one of the windows were the two

Spedding 2008-2016
27
broken panes of glass, which admitted of the drawing back of the curtain and the
revealing of the traces of the terrible crime.
D.C. Dew remembered how the room was on the ground floor, and about 12 ft. by
10 ft. It was self-contained. A sort of one-room flat. The only door in use was that
by which we had entered. There was very little furniture, a bed, a table, a chair or
two, all in a bad state of repair (Dew 1938).
Simon D. Wood (author) researched the pedigree of the crime scene photograph
MJK3. He wrote the bed had a gap of about 11 inches where bedding was rolled
up and stuffed between the bed and the partition wall (Wood 2005). 41
The Reynolds Newspaper | November 18, 1888.
Room dimensions
12 feet from door to fireplace

10 feet from windows to wall partition
Gap between bed and wall
11 inches
Furniture
A double bed
Two tables: One under the window (4.0 long) and one
beside the bed (just over 2.0 long)
One or two chairs measuring 16 inches square
Walls
Papered and dirty
Floor
Wooden floorboards bare and filthy
Windows
One small and one large looking upon the yard where
a dustbin and water-tap was situated.
Other
A nailed up door
A wash-stand
Fireplace and a dilapidated fender
A [tin] pail and oil stove
Part of a mirror
41
Wood, Simon D. The Enigmas of Millers Court. Ripperologist No. 62, December 2005. Print.

Spedding 2008-2016
28
We need to go over two suspected events that are reported to have taken place
days before the murder. Going over these events will allow us to explain an element
that has remained veiled in the past since the crime was committed: Inspector
Abberlines account about a kettle (preexistent item at the crime scene) which had
a melted spout. Being the kettle was preexistent and in use, we have no information
how the Inspector formed an opinion the spout melted on the day of the murder as
opposed to having melted at an earlier date.
Inspector Abberline told Coroner and Jury he arrived at the crime scene at 11:30
a.m., and he himself had taken an inventory of the room.
I am in charge of this case -I was on the scene of the murder by 11.30 [a.m.] on
Friday [November 9th]. I had an intimation from Inspector Beck that the [hound]
dogs had been sent for; Dr. Phillips asked me not to force the door but to test the
dogs if they were coming.
We remained until 1.30 [p.m.] when Superintendent Arnold arrived and informed
me that the order as to [the] dogs had been countermanded, and he gave
directions for the door to be forced.
I have heard the doctors [Phillips] evidence and confirm what he says.
I have taken an inventory of what was in the room. There had been a large fire so
large as to melt the spout off the kettle.
I have since gone through the ashes in the grate and found nothing of
consequence, except that articles, of womans clothing, had been burnt, which I
presume was for the purpose of light as there was only one piece of candle in the
room.
I am informed by the witness [Joseph] Barnett that the key has been missing for
some time and that they opened the door by reaching through the window; a
[tobacco] pipe was there and used by him. 42
We do not know when Barnett mentioned to the Inspector about the missing key,
but we do know with certainty he could not have told the police about it between
11:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., because the door was not opened by reaching through
the broken window, but by breaking it open.
Here is how the press reported on Inspector Abberlines deposition, in regards to
the large fire:
42
Inspector Abberlines Deposition, November 12, 1888: Ref. MJ/SPC, NE1888, Box 3, Case Paper 19.

Spedding 2008-2016
29
Daily Telegraph
November 12, 1888.
Abberline: There were traces of a large fire having been kept up in the grate, so
much so that it had melted the spout of a kettle off. We have since gone through
the ashes in the fireplace; there were remnants of clothing, a portion of a brim of a
hat, and a skirt, and it appeared as if a large quantity of womens clothing had been
burnt.
Coroner: Can you give any reason why they were burnt?
Abberline: I can only imagine that it was to make a light for the man to see what
he was doing. There was only one small candle in the room, on the top of a broken
wine-glass. An impression has gone abroad that the murderer took away the key
of the room. Barnett informs me that it has been missing some time, and since it
has been lost they have put their hand through the broken window, and moved
back the catch. It is quite easy.
Sooner than later, it was supported that the huge fire had been set ablaze to give
the light needed for the ripper to execute his appalling work. It was however the
same reporters reasoning how those who have charge of the case, are most of all
surprised that the huge blaze in the unfortunates womans room, did not attract the
attention of residents of the adjoining tenements (Daily Telegraph, Nov. 13. 1888).
What has happened to Inspector Abberlines inventory list of the crime scene, or
why he did not give further details at the inquest, is unknown.
Coming down to our first suspected event, this would be when the victim broke at
least three windowpanes -in the smaller window- as a result of an argument she
had with her former boyfriend, Barnett.
Daily Telegraph
November 13, 1888
The smaller window had two or three broken panes of glass, which had been
broken prior the murder.
The people who forwarded this information to investigators and the press were quite
a few. Their individual police and inquest statements will be given below for
continuity purposes. Additional notes from us will be inserted.

Spedding 2008-2016
30
Thomas Bowyer (37, Dorset Street) 43

Police statement | Inquest testimony 44
Thomas Bowyer, a man who would not have been the most
wholehearted and sympathetic rent-collector in the time we
talk of, was one person who provided the information of the
broken windows. These rent-collectors were ostensibly to
act as a doorman to the establishment, thus keeping
undesirables away from the tenants. However, in reality, the
bullys main job was to ensure that punters [rent runners]
didnt leave without paying their dues. A typical bully was
either ex-army [Bowyer was an Indian army retiree] or recently out of gaol (Rule
2010). Adding to these described duties, the responsibilities of rent collectors led
them to develop sleuth-like abilities (Walkowitz 1992). 45
Down to the morning of November 9th, Bowyer informed the police he had seen
the crime scene by peeking through one of the broken windowpanes. He did not
offer information of when the window was broken, why it was broken, or who broke
it. There are two reasons why he wouldnt: Guilt or ignorance. If it was guilt, it was
because Bowyer (alone or with someone else) may have entered the crime scene
before informing the police of what he had seen. This action would be enough to
kick at his sub-guilty conscience and so refrain from giving the police further
information than necessary. If it was ignorance, it was because Bowyer was
unaware of who actually broke the window and when. This ignorance gave him the
privilege of being a simple describer of his own actions that morning.
No official police report on the case, specifically from the first responding officers,
has been found in the public domain. This is unfortunate. An official police report
would have the information of who first found the body. Any other report, such as
from newspapers, witnesses or police memoirs, cannot tell a researcher beyond
doubt who it was who first found the body; it only tells of who first alerted the
authorities, and Thomas Bowyer can be placed within this category.
43
Scott, Christopher. Will the real Mary Kelly? Spire Publishing, 2005: In 1881 it was occupied by two Jewish families, the
Beliskys and the Jacobs, and a Spitalfields family by the name of Fox. In 1891 the occupancy of the house had been taken by
four Jewish families of the names of Brooks, York, Donovan and Burns. One of these residents, John Donovan, was listed as a
fish porter.
44
45
Walkowitz, Judith R. City of Dreadful Delight: Narratives of Sexual Danger in Late Victorian London. London: Virago Press
Ltd., 1992. Print.

Spedding 2008-2016
31
Bowyer was the first witness the police interviewed. He was supposed to have been
the individual who first discovered the crime. Described by the majority of
newspapers as an old pensioner or a soldier of 20 years with sketches of him at
the time reflecting those descriptions, there was a singled out report from The Echo
reporters stating a young man named McCarthy first discovered the crime and not
Thomas Bowyer the rent-collector.
The Echo
November 9, 1888.
The crime was first discovered by a young man named McCarthy, who went to the
house this morning with his mother to collect the rent. On opening the front door
he saw a body lying in the passage, and he immediately closed the door again and
drew his mother away, saying, Mother, there is another murder.
The article coincided/corroborated the young fellow who stumbled into the
Commercial Street Police Station on the morning of November 9th and seen by
D.C. Dew: I was chatting with Inspector Beck, who was in charge of the station,
when a young fellow, his eyes bulging out of his head, came panting into the Police
Station (Dew 1938).
Being there are two accounts deposited into the case (an old pensioner and a
young fellow) of who first discovered the crime, it remains open for research who
it actually was. Bowyer himself never testified he was the first to discover the crime;
and no young man named McCarthy was brought forward by the police to give his
account. If we open up the suggestion that Bowyer was requested to testify in place
of a young man named McCarthy, the only person he would have accommodated
would have been the landlord -his master as he referred to him on several
occasions. But here are the difficult points connected to this.
Difficulty #1 If Bowyer did his master a favour by testifying in place of McCarthys
young son, then McCarthy would have needed to request from the authorities they
do him a favour by keeping his young son out of the equation. Besides, its not as
if the person who discovered the crime was suspected of being involved in the
Millers Court murder. Was it possible?
Reporters at the time mentioned McCarthy was spoken of by the police as a most
respectable man (The Scotsman, Nov. 10. 1888); he was well-known to them as
a common lodging-house proprietor (Dew 1938), and their view of him would have

Spedding 2008-2016
32
elevated during November since he had only then been awarded a prize for
collecting money for the hospitals (The Scotsman, Nov. 10. 1888).
Fiona Rule researched the McCarthy family. She provides a whole chapter on this
Irish family that became Dorset Streets most influential residents (Rule 2010).
One particular event that took place in 1882 and reported in The Times of March
29th of that year will suffice to record how influential the McCarthy family was.
In 1882, Jack McCarthy and Jimmy Smiths brother Richard were involved in an
ugly confrontation with the police during an illegal prize fight they had organised at
St Andrews Hall in Tavistock Place. Both men were arrested and eventually found
themselves in front of the judge at the Middlesex Sessions House in Clerkenwell.
Although neither man could deny they were present at the fight, Jimmy Smith
managed to persuade Sergeant Thicke of the Whitechapel Division to give both
men glowing character references, thus saving them from incarceration. Instead,
McCarthy was fined and Smith (who had assaulted a policeman during the fracas)
was bound over to keep the peace and made to pay 5.
Rule (2010)
So yes, it would have been possible McCarthy request the police not to involve his
young son who discovered the crime, and so do him a favour to substitute the young
boy with his loyal servant, Thomas Bowyer.
Difficulty #2 The next to consider would be if McCarthy had a young son in 1888.
Rule mentioned McCarthy had a fourteen-year-old son at the time and this is also
documented by contributors to Wiki Jack the Ripper who report that in 1877,
McCarthy married an Elizabeth Stephens; the marriage was consummated with six
children:
Age in 1888
14
John -or Steve- (b.1874)
12
Margaret (b.1876)
10
Elizabeth (b.1878)
Anne (b.1886)
Not yet born
Nelly (b.1891)
Not yet born
Rosy (b.1893)
It seems McCarthy did have a young son at the time called John (or Steve), who
was born in 1874 having him at the age of fourteen in 1888.

Spedding 2008-2016
33
Difficulty #3 An extremely complicated point to consider is where The Echo

newspaper reported the body was initially found, which automatically flipped Room
No. 13 into a secondary crime scene; more importantly, into a staged crime scene.
This should not terrify, because an important forensic and investigative fact is that
any scene can be staged and Turvey describes its sole purpose.
It is a specific type of precautionary act that is intended to deflect suspicion away
from the offender. Staging often involves the addition, removal, and manipulation
of items in the crime scene to change the apparent motive.
Turvey (2012)
Take into consideration the following. It was only the authorities that had total
access to police records and mortuary photographs on previous ripper murders; the
public hardly knew how a ripper crime scene looked like. Press reports presented
ghastly scenes and the rest was taken over by their readers imagination. The other
individual who had total access to a ripper crime scene would have been the
offender himself; the Millers Court overkill however, would not have coincided with
his particular modus operandi.
Overkill was defined as injuries above and beyond those required to cause the
death of the victim, where additional injuries are repeatedly inflicted after lethal
force has already been applied (Turvey 2008).
Claire Ferguson (2010) 46
. . .the deliberate act of sexually positioning the body in the crime scene. This
includes presenting a totally nude or partially clothed victims body for display,
which has been manipulated in a sexual manner to expose the breasts, buttocks
and/or genitalia. In addition, spreading open the victims legs, splaying out of the
victims arms, presenting the victim in bondage and/or binding the hands behind
the back, hanging the nude or semi-nude body, insertion of foreign objects into the
sexual orifices, engaging in sexual mutilation, piquerism, cutting, evisceration,
defeminization, and/or overkill injuries.
Vernon Geberth (2010) 47
The Millers Court crime scene can be described as dazzling. Such a scene hides
the real events through confusion. These behaviours could involve staging a crime
scene in a non-specific way designed to confuse the nature of the crime thus
drawing attention away from themselves (Whaley 1982).
46
48
The motive behind
Ferguson, Claire. The Defects of the Situation: A Typology of Staged Crime Scenes. Web. September 2010. Print.
Geberth, Vernon. Crime Scene Staging: An Exploratory Study of the Frequency and Characteristics of Sexual Posing in
Homicides. Investigative Sciences Journal (ISJ). Vol. 2, No. 2. July 2010. Web. 2010. Print.
48
Whaley, B. Toward a General Theory of Deception. The Journal of Strategic Studies, No. 5, 1982. Print.
47

Spedding 2008-2016
34
staging a dazzling crime scene (in order to confuse) would be to implicate someone
or direct attention away from the real offender onto another person or group
(Whaley 1982).
But how does one determine if Room No. 13 was altered to deceive the authorities
investigating it? Well, certain red flags should pop up. For example, did the
offenders point of entry make sense? Unfortunately, we do not have the
investigators report to know what they thought of the point of entry. Today, it is
assumed that the offender gained access via the front door as a potential client
because two uncorroborated witness accounts said so. We gave this subject in
detail earlier, but can go into some detail at this point on the suspected suspects.
Two people mentioned they saw a man with the victim in the space of two hours.
One was seen at 11:45 p.m. entering Room No. 13 with the victim, and the other
was seen at 02:00 a.m. going up Millers Court passage with the victim. These men
described were presumed to be the murderer; otherwise there would have been no
point in testifying to seeing them in the first place.
Both suspects were male (the only element that is identical)
Their ages varied from 34 to 36 years (not identical but similar)
Height was 5ft. 5in. to 5ft. 6in (not identical but similar)
Complexion was fair to blotchy (gas lamps play tricks in the night)
One looked like he came from the working class whilst the other from the welloff classes (totally different social status)
One seemed local whilst the other didnt (different habitat)
The remaining descriptions of these men will not be considered, as clothes, hair
and accessories can easily change. Notice how both suspects can pass off as the
same individual, except for their status and habitat. This translates into how the
witness saw each man according to their fantasy element.
Mary Ann Cox sees the working class man who was a local
George Hutchinson sees the well-off man who was not a local
But something more important should have raised eyebrows. Should a witness
boldly state that they can identify a suspect, presumably the killer, then they do not
fear retaliation from the latter. So a question arises: Why did Hutchinson and Cox
not fear Jack the Ripper coming back for them? Cox said she saw the rippers

Spedding 2008-2016
35
face with carroty moustache clean shaven chin and all; Hutchinson on the other
hand actually shoved his own face into the rippers.
The person who was able to recognize the maniac killer of Whitechapel would not
exactly have been the safest individual to walk the streets and alleys of Whitechapel
during November of 1888.
For Cox, being she was a prostitute as she stated at the inquest, her occupation
would have had her on the streets intertwining with many strangers. Publicly
testifying to recognizing Jack the Ripper, would have put her life in danger.
The Star
November 12, 1888.
A JUROR
Should you know the man again if you saw him?
WITNESS-COX
Oh, yes, I should.
The Times
November 13, 1888.
She [Cox] would know the man again if she saw him.
As to Hutchinsons safety, well, he made up a theory: The man I saw did not look
as though he would attack another one (The Star, Nov. 14. 1888). Quite an
interesting observation considering this was Jack the Ripper and Hutchinson had
no clue how the ripper would react to someone who could actually describe him to
trigger his capture.
Whatever the case may have been, we hear of no harm coming to a Mary Ann Cox
in the following months, even though she boldly told the public that she could
identify the maniac called Jack the Ripper. Neither do we hear that a George
Hutchinson was found murdered in the following months.
Another red flag would be this: Did Millers Court pose a high risk to the offender?
Without going into too much detail, it obviously did.
Millers Court was packed with residents who knew each other and would meet in
pubs even as early as 05:00 a.m. Apart from this, Room No. 13 was not an out of
the way private room; anyone wanting to get their water supply would need to stand
outside this room since the water-tap was situated opposite its windows. We also
know that strangers could not easily frequent the area without being observed
(Daily Telegraph, Nov. 10. 1888).

Spedding 2008-2016
36
One more red flag that can be mentioned, would be how offenders often will
manipulate the victims discovery by a neighbour or family member or will be
conveniently elsewhere when the victim is discovered (Douglas and Douglas
2006).
49
The discovery of the Millers Court victim was done by the rent-collector
who lived in the neighbourhood.

[Police] Statement of Thomas Bowyer, 37, Dorset Street Spitalfields in the employ of John
McCarthy, lodging-house keeper, Dorset Street.
Says that at 10.45 a.m., 9th instant, he was sent by his employer, to number 13
room Millers Court, Dorset Street, for the rent. He knocked at the door, but not
getting any answer he threw the blinds back and looked through the window which
was broken and saw the body of deceased woman whom he knew as Mary Jane.
50
Seeing that there was a quantity of blood on her person and that she had been
apparently murdered, he immediately went and informed his employer, Mr.
McCarthy, who also looked into the room and at once dispatched Bowyer to the
Police Station Commercial Street, and informed the Inspector on duty.
(Insp Beck) who returned with him and his employer who had also followed to the
Station. He knew the deceased and also a man named Joe, who had occupied the
room for some months past.
Bowyer made no mention he was the first person to find the body; it is only a
presumption that he did. And here is where the first responding officers police
reports are imperative in any murder case.
The witness said McCarthy sent him for the rent. There is no mention where the
former was when he got the order -it could have been the same morning or the
previous night. Though this lack of information to the police excludes timing
Bowyers activities for the morning of November 9th, two days later (at the inquest)
Bowyer did mention when he got the order.
Daily Telegraph
November 13, 1888.
[Same information is given in the original inquest records]
At a quarter to eleven a.m., on Friday morning, I was ordered by McCarthy to go
to Mary Janes room, No. 13.
49
Douglas, J., and L. Douglas. The Detection of Staging, Undoing and Personation at the Crime Scene. Douglas, Burgess and
Ressler editions, Crime Classification Manual, second edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006. Print.
50
The Daily Telegraph of November 13, 1888, reported Bowyer did not know the victim as Kelly.

Spedding 2008-2016
37
Bowyer didnt clarify if a partial of the overdue rent would have been asked for,
which would have been the most logical circumstance. The whole amount (1.50)
of rent owed was out of an East End prostitutes budget and runaway hubby.
The witness said he got no answer to his knock. We have no further information if
this hour of the morning was usual for the victim to be home, so his next action was
a logical one and suggests Bowyer knew the window of Room No. 13 was broken.
So through the broken window he peered and saw the body of the occupant.
There is no description from Bowyer, which would assist the police (at a later stage)
in how the crime scene was seen fresh from the offenders hands; only that he saw
a quantity of blood on her person, which triggered a conclusion that she had been
apparently murdered.
Bowyer then told the police that his immediate reaction was to inform his employer.
He didnt dwell on his personal emotions or thoughts, which may not have been
added or requested by the police at the time.
After the landlord also looked into the room -logically through the broken window
though this was not pointed out- Bowyer was sent to Commercial Street Police
Station where he informed the on duty Inspector. Unknown how long after,
McCarthy followed and all three (Bowyer, McCarthy, Inspector Beck) returned to
Millers Court. At that time, The Times reported, no other persons in the Court
knew what had occurred. But this was a hypothesis of the reporter, because we
do not know who peeked through the window before or after Bowyer had.
Bowyer said he knew the victim including a man named Joe, who had occupied
the room for some months past. We can only assume he talks of Joseph Barnett,
because other Joes later came into the picture.
On the day the crime was reported to the police, a Mrs. Hewitt living at 25, Dorset
Street told reporters that a man -a drover by trade- called on her some time ago
and asked if a summons came in the name of Lawrence to accept it. This Jewish
man called Lawrence, she believes lived with the dead woman. He was off and on
in London, sometimes being absent for five or six weeks (The Star, Nov. 9. 1888).
At the inquest, Bowyer noted to Coroner and Jury that he was a servant to
McCarthy, and served in the latters Chandlers Shop, which was located at 27,
Dorset Street on the corner of Millers Court. He made it quite clear that he was
ordered by McCarthy to go for the rent; the order came that same morning, so

Spedding 2008-2016
38
we get an answer when this order came, but leaves unanswered if it was a usual
hour when the victim would be found home. It should not be forgotten that the Lord
Mayors Show was celebrated that morning from 10:00 a.m.
Outside area of Room No. 13 (Millers Court)
The witness continued by saying he knocked twice on the door but there was no
response, so he went round the corner and there was a broken window in the
farthest window. At that point, a G-Division Police Inspector, Charles Ledger,
produced correct plans of the premises, with Bowyer saying, I refer to plan and I
mean the farthest pane [not the window as previously mentioned] of the first
window, the small one. This would mean that more windowpanes had been broken
than already suggested by researchers. Bowyer said a curtain was covering this
small window, which is not noticeable in the above photograph.
Cropped area from crime scene photograph (MJK1)
Bowyer then said: I pulled the curtain aside and

looked in. I saw two lumps of flesh laying on the table
[to be -deleted] close against the bed, in front of the
bed. The second time I looked, I saw a body of
someone laid on the bed, and blood on the floor.
So Bowyer managed to identify two lumps of flesh in a semi-dark room from where
he stood outside the window (10 feet from window to wall) amongst the mass seen
on the small bedside table. He must have reacted then retracted, because he then
said he took a second look into the room and that is when he saw a body of
someone laid on the bed, and blood on the floor.

Spedding 2008-2016
39
Witness continued to tell Coroner and Jury that he quietly went back to his
master who was in the Chandlers Shop and told him of what he had seen. Both
looked through the window and both set off for help. In his police statement, Bowyer
did not say he and the landlord left at the same time, but that Insp Beck who
returned with him and his employer who had also followed to the Station.
Bowyer insisted they told no one of what they saw before going to the police. But
this does not exclude others from peeking through the window without Bowyer
knowing about it.
Witness then said he last saw the victim on Wednesday afternoon, November 7th,
inside Millers Court but gives no further details (nor is he asked) as to what she
may have been doing or if she was with company.
Daily Telegraph
November 13, 1888.
JURY
When did you see her last alive?
BOWYER
On Wednesday afternoon, [November 7th,] in the Court, when I

spoke to her. McCarthys shop is at the corner of Millers Court.
Following is an extract of an account of how D.C. Dew remembered the events that
morning. It must be mentioned how a small group of researchers on the case are
not willing to completely trust the Detective Constables account, perhaps because
he remembered events that did not fit into a stereotype theory, or because he used
to make notes on his police work but rarely made use of any notebook, especially
when giving evidence.
The Detective Constable was described as being a softy in his line of work. He had
too much sympathy for the poor wretches his work at Scotland Yard brought him
up against -he was that rarity among detectives, a genuinely compassionate man.
On the other hand, he loathed the paper work, despised the routine checking and
re-checking that makes so large a part of modern detection. He was more of a thieftaker than an executive type (Cullen 1988). 51
D.C. Dews account If I remember rightly, it was between ten and eleven
oclock in the morning that I looked in at Commercial Street Police Station to
get into touch with my superiors. I was chatting with Inspector Beck, who was
in charge of the station, when a young fellow, his eyes bulging out of his head,
51
Cullen, Tom. Crippen: The Mild Murderer. London: Penguin Group, 1988. Ch. III, pp. 67-68. Print.

Spedding 2008-2016
40
came panting into the Police Station. The poor fellow was so frightened that
for a time he was unable to utter a single intelligible word. At last he managed
to stammer out something about Another one. Jack the Ripper. Awful. Jack
McCarthy sent me. Mr. McCarthy was well known to us as a common
lodging-house proprietor.
We dont know how this messenger (whoever he was) could have been so sure
Jack the Ripper committed the Millers Court murder. This messenger had no
access to previous ripper crime scenes to enable him in recognizing a ripper murder
scene; neither did he have access to autopsy reports, which would have enabled
him to distinguish differences from the Millers Court overkill with other canonical
victim kills. The only conclusion we can fathom, as to how this messenger knew
Jack the Ripper committed this murder, was because he was told it was.
Consider however that the last two victims had been killed on September 30th, a
gap of 40 days; it justified at the time what the staff at The Star complained about.
The Star
November 10, 1888.
Another murder -committed, as we said it would be, when public interest had
slackened down, and the Vigilance Committee had ceased to work.
So willingly or not, the youth (or a middle-aged Bowyer) who ran into the Police
Station that morning, injected the notion this was a ripper murder at a very early
stage; a preconceived thought was injected into the minds of the first responding
officers and it seemed not so difficult to accomplish.
Those intending to frame others may do so, and very well, by starting rumours and
innuendo against the person they wish to frame. . .The real perpetrator may also
mutilate the body of a victim, so that one persons body may be mistaken for
anothers and the framing made complete.
OHara and Osterburg (1972) 52
The messenger definitely injected into the officers a manipulating circumstance.

He [the first responding officer] should not approach his task with a mind already
made up about the crime because this may lead him to carelessness and false
moves which may prove disastrous.
Svensson and Wendel (1974). 53
52
53
OHara C., and J. Osterburg, An Introduction to Criminalistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1972. Print.
Svensson A., and Wendel, O. Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation. 2nd edition, NY: American Elsevier, 1974. Print.

Spedding 2008-2016
41
An interesting point needs to be considered before continuing. Katherine Crooks

(author) noted that this male-on-female violence (Crooks 2015),
54
which was
highlighted by the ripper murders (Crooks 2015), was also supported by Judith
Walkowitz (Professor of History). The concept provided Victorian men with the
vocabulary to voice their latent aggression against women (Crooks 2015). The
press at the time elaborated:
Daily News
November 10, 1888.
A brutal man, getting into a furious quarrel with a woman in some wretched slum
of the East End, might have been content a few months ago with kicking her to
death, or cutting her throat. Now, however, when such a man has quarreled with
a woman and killed her, it is quite possible that he will not be satisfied until he has
followed the new Whitechapel mode, and gashed and disemboweled her.
Therefore it is not to be hastily assumed that all the murders were done by the one
hand, or that the last murder [at Millers Court] was the work of the same criminal
as any of the former.
We see that by the early weeks of November 1888, Jacks Whitechapel mode was
no longer unique. And, if we consider the possibility that the crime scene of Room
No. 13 might have been a staged one, it was totally out of Jacks method of
operation. It answers -to a certain extent- but not beyond doubt, why there were no
more crimes after November 9, 1888, officially attributed to Jack the Ripper.
Even so, amongst the early reports on the crime, the Millers Court murder was not
attributed to Jack the Ripper; neither did Superintendent Thomas Arnold believe
it was when interviewed five years later.
The Eastern Post & City Chronicle
November 10, 1888.
An arrest has been made; and it is so far satisfactory to learn that this is not
supposed to be another of the series of Whitechapel murders, which have caused
so much sensation in the past. It is reported that the cause of the dreadful crime
was jealousy. First reports, however, are always more or less conflicting.
February 3, 1893.
Superintendent Arnold: I still hold to the opinion that not more than four of those
murders were committed by the same hand. They were the murders of Annie
54
Crooks, Katherine. Jack the Rippers Unfortunate Victims: Prostitution as Vagrancy, 1888-1900. Dalhousie University,
2015. Print.

Spedding 2008-2016
42
Chapman in Hanbury Street, Mrs. Nicholls in Bucks Row, Elizabeth Stride in

Berner Street, and Mary Kelly in Mitre Square.
The name Mary Kelly the Superintendent referred to was the name Catherine
Eddowes gave the police upon her release from the police station the night she was
murdered; she also gave her address as 6, Fashion Street in Spitalfields though
she was lodging at the time at 55, Flower & Dean Street. There was no official
information, which could have explained this contradiction, and Miss Phillips
(Eddowes daughter) testified her mother had told her she was married to a man
called Kelly but she never saw the marriage license.
Station Sergeant James Byfield | Written statement extract

October 1888. 55
I discharged her [Eddowes] after she gave her name and address
which she was unable to do when brought in. She gave the name of
Mary Ann Kelly, 6 Fashion Street, Spitalfields.
D.C. Dews account contd Come along, Dew, said Inspector Beck, and
gathering from the terrorized messenger that Dorset Street was the scene of
whatever had happened, we made him our pilot, as we rushed in that direction,
collecting as many constables as we could on the way.
The youth led us a few yards down Dorset Street from Commercial Street,
until we came to a court approached by an arched passage, three feet wide and
unlighted, in which there were two entrances to houses which fronted on
Dorset Street. The place was known as Millers Court.
Leaving the constables to block Dorset Street and to prevent anyone from
leaving the court itself, Inspector Beck and I proceeded through the narrow
archway into what might be described as a small square. It was a cul-de-sac,
flanked on all four sides by a few mean houses. The house on the left of the
passage was kept by McCarthy as a Chandlers Shop, while one room of the
houses on the right was rented by a girl named Marie Kelly.
McCarthys messenger was by this time able to tell a more or less coherent
story. He told us that some of the neighbours had become alarmed at the non-
55
Ref. Coroners inquest (L), 1888, No. 135, Catherine Eddowes inquest, 1888. (Corporation of London Record Office).

Spedding 2008-2016
43
appearance that morning of Kelly. They had spoken about it to McCarthy, and
he had sent the youth to find her.
D.C. Dews narrative tells us of alarmed neighbours who spoke to the landlord
regarding the victims non-appearance that morning. We dont know at what time
these alarmed neighbours spoke to McCarthy, but should some of the prostitutes
have contemplated attending the Lord Mayors Show, they would have gotten
together before 11:00 a.m. when the event was to begin. It seems that 15 minutes
before the celebrations began, McCarthy reacted to the neighbours concerns, and
sent someone to check on the victim, if we are to believe this version.
Remember reader the activities that usually took place in or around Millers Court:
Men go in and out of there and nobody thinks anything about them or takes notice
of them (Daily News, Nov. 10. 1888). Dorset Street consisted almost entirely of
common lodging houses (Sugden 1994). No doubt, prostitute friends of the victim
were not restricted in visiting her, so these alarming neighbours could have knocked
on her flat door to check on her themselves instead of offering their concerns of her
whereabouts to the landlord. These points just mentioned actually weaken D.C.
Dews version of why someone was sent to Room No. 13.
On the other hand, if we are to believe Bowyers version, we dont know the time
when he was usually sent to do his rent collecting rounds. But whichever version
was correct, the time remained the same for when the crime became someones
attention: 10.45 a.m.
This murky business of a youth either finding the body (according to reporters) or
of calling into the Police Station (according to D.C. Dew) may explain why police
official reports on the case never surfaced into the public domain. Whatever one
wishes to believe, no evidence exists to certify that Bowyer was telling the truth. On
the other hand, there are only strong suspicions this man lied to screen a young
man named McCarthy.
McCarthy the landlord was the second individual who gave information of the
broken windows. He told Coroner and Jury the victim once broke the two windows
but he did not specify when it happened, even though he referred to who broke the
windows and why.

Spedding 2008-2016
44
Daily Telegraph
November 13, 1888.
CORONER: How long had the deceased lived in the room?
MCCARTHY: Ten months. She lived with Barnett. I did not know whether they were
married or not; they lived comfortably together, but they had a row
when the window was broken. The bedstead, bed-clothes, table, and
every article of furniture belonged to me.
Being he was the landlord, this is all McCarthy would have been interested in, as
opposed to when the event happened. Knowing of the damage, and who caused it,
would have allowed him to charge the appropriate persons for the damage.
John (or Jack) McCarthy (27, Dorset Street)
--Police statement | Inquest testimony 56
McCarthy was the second witness to be interviewed by the

police. Keep in mind that this person was well known to the
police and respected by them; he was also a benefactor of the
community. These variables offered beneficial weight to
McCarthy; he could pull the strings he needed whenever he
needed. As years advanced, McCarthy became extremely
influential, and by 1901, he was making public appearances and speeches at the
level a politician would have.
[Police] Statement of John McCarthy, grocer, lodging-house keeper, 27, Dorset Street,
Spitalfields.
I sent my man Thomas Bowyer to No. 13 room Millers Court, Dorset Street owned
by me for the rent. Bowyer came back and called me, telling me what he had seen.
I went with him back and looked through the broken window, where I saw the
mutilated remains of deceased whom I knew as Mary Jane Kelly. I then
despatched Bowyer to the Police Station Commercial Street (following myself) to
acquaint the police. The Inspector [Beck] on duty returned with us to the scene at
Millers Court.
I let the room almost ten months ago to the deceased and a man named Joe, who
I believed to be her husband. It was a furnished room, at 4s/6 per week. I sent for
the rent because for some time past, they had not kept their payments regularly. I
have since heard, the man Joe was not her husband, and that he had recently left
her.
56

Spedding 2008-2016
45
McCarthy did not specify when exactly he ordered Bowyer to collect the rent, but
upon Bowyers return, he was told what was seen. Both stepped into the Court and
he himself looked through the broken window where he saw the body.
So McCarthy had no doubts as to the identity of the victim, which was a statement
based on presumption, because he did tell the press the body was a sight beyond
recognition (Cedar Rapids Evening Gazette, Nov. 12. 1888), and the Autopsy
Report stated the victims face had been hacked beyond recognition of its
features. Of course, the landlord had no reason not to believe the body lying on the
bed, in Kellys room, could be other than hers; it was not however positive identity,
and should have guarded the police against believing it was.
McCarthy corroborated Bowyers police statement that he first sent him to the
Station and followed, but did not say how long after. The landlord then told the
police some history: I let the room about ten months ago to the deceased and a
man name Joe, who I believed to be her husband.
Again, we can only assume McCarthy was talking of Joseph Barnett as opposed to
the Joe that Mrs. Hewitt believed lived with the dead woman, and was sometimes
absent for five or six weeks; or the other Joe who was a costermonger and would
give the victim money, ill-using her for living with Barnett, as the witness Venturney
stated. The authorities had an obligation however to verify from McCarthy which
Joe he was referring to; this mishap happened because authoritative figures
respected the witness and automatically put blind faith into what he said.
Researchers however should not expect McCarthy of having been a truthful person,
if there was no personal interest attached to it. By the 1870s, Spitalfields landlords
were becoming highly organised in the way they made their money. Common
lodging houses represented the legitimate, if morally dubious, side of their
business, as did the Chandlers Shops (which sold household essentials such as
candles, soap and oil) and general stores that proliferated in the area (Rule 2010).
McCarthy owned one such shop. However, the occupations and tastes of their
lodgers created a huge demand for three services that were on the wrong side of
the law: Prostitution, the fencing of stolen goods and illegal gambling (Rule 2010).
No doubt, the police found it easier to turn a blind eye to the goings on in the
lodging houses and, without feedback from the police, the authorities were oblivious
to the plight of the law-abiding residents. The only threat to the lodging house

Spedding 2008-2016
46
proprietors empires came from competitors, keen to expand their operations (Rule
2010). It was not unheard of that the police were in cahoots, at least with the brothel
owners, to turn the blind eye.
Aroha News
September 5, 1885.
It is absurd to attempt to cure the mischief by increasing an arbitrary police power.
It proves that police, generally, with some honourable exceptions, receive regular
payment from abandoned women, besides insisting on having favours. The lewd
women of London fully understand that unless they regularly bribe policemen they
must quit London or otherwise be arrested and annoyed by trumped-up charges.
The strongest Freemasonry among policemen exists in this direction. One keeper
says: The police are our best friends. They keep things snug, and brothel-keepers
are the policemens best friends, because they pay them. I only keep a small
house, but pay the police 3 weekly.
Standing before Coroner and Jury, the landlord corroborated Bowyers testimony,
saying he was notified of the murder at 10:50 a.m., saw the body and then ran off
with Bowyer for help.
Apparently, if both Bowyer and McCarthy left (as they both stated) then Room No.
13 had to have been left unattended with a mutilated body where anyone could
have pulled aside the curtain to peek in. Actually, that is exactly what happened, if
we are to believe the following account where several scavengers were in Millers
Court at 09:00 a.m. on November 9th, and declared that the body was not there
then (East and West Ham Gazette, Nov. 10. 1888). The reporters brushed it aside
by stating the scavengers may have been mistaken, as the place was very dark.
But if the place was very dark at 09:00 a.m. for the scavengers when they peeked
through the broken window and did not see the body, then it was also very dark
for McCarthy and Bowyer at 10:45 and at 10:50 a.m. when they peeked through
the broken window and saw the body.
Even if we brush aside D.C. Dews narrative of seeing a youngster run into the
Police Station, or disregard the press that McCarthys son discovered the crime as
opposed to Bowyer, or hold on to old-time beliefs that Room No. 13 was the initial
crime scene, we need to ask this question: Why would anyone misinform the public,
to such an extent, that would assist in screening the offender, and change the
apparent motive of the Millers Court crime?

Spedding 2008-2016
47
If logic jumps in to answer, it would be that this was not a Jack the Ripper crime,
and was made to look like one; and, since the public had no idea of what an actual
ripper crime scene looked like, the overkill inside Room No. 13, which was
described and seen by officials, was the result. As a consequence, it would not
have taken much for the actual offender to back off from taking responsibility for
this overkill created, because it went beyond his usual method. More importantly,
the rippers Whitechapel mode was no longer unique when the Millers Court crime
was committed in November.
Closing his testimony, McCarthy told Coroner and Jury that the victim lived in Room
No. 13 for ten months, and lived with Barnett. The latter however will later testify
to living at Millers Court since March and not since January as the landlord said.
Daily Telegraph
November 13, 1888.
CORONER
How long had the deceased lived in the room?
MCCARTHY
Ten months. She lived with Barnett. I did not know whether they were
married or not; they lived comfortably together, but they had a row
when the window was broken. The bedstead, bed-clothes, table, and
every article of furniture belonged to me.
McCarthys saying: From January till October, a man named Joe and
the victim rented a room at Millers Court.
Barnetts saying: From March till October was living with the victim in
a room at Millers Court.
In a newspaper interview, McCarthy opined that the victim was killed before 08:30
a.m. It was never explained how he arrived at this conclusion.
The Times
November 12, 1888.
It is the opinion of Mr. McCarthy, the landlord of 26, Dorset Street, that the woman
was murdered at a much earlier hour than 8 oclock.
There is only one possibility, which would explain how the landlord was of the
opinion that the murder had taken place earlier than 08:00 a.m., and it is that he
was informed of the murder much earlier.
A newspaper report stated how some payment was made by the murderer to use
Room No. 13 in Millers Court for a sexual visit; the payment was received by

Spedding 2008-2016
48
someone residing in the house (East London Observer, Nov. 10. 1888). This
particular sexual visit, if it had been prearranged and prepaid for, it could not have
gone unnoticed by McCarthy; he spied on the victim, as she had to walk right past
the front door of his shop in order to get to her room (Rule 2010). Whatever the
case, it is doubtful evidence lingers to clarify and verify these points we raise.
Dr. Phillips was the next person who gave information of the broken windows. He
was an outsider, if you will, and had no means of knowing who broke the window
or why. The medical officer told Coroner and Jury he found two panes broken when
he looked through one of them upon his arrival.

November 12, 1888.
I found a room, the door of which led out of the passage near 26,
Dorset Street, and having two windows. I produce a photograph I had
taken -there are two windows in the Court- 2 of the panes in the window
nearest the passage were broken. . .
Julia Venturney was the final person who gave information of the broken windows;
she was a prostitute friend to the victim and informed the police the victim broke
the windows a few weeks earlier whilst she was drunk. This information is not
repeated when she appears to testify.
Based on the above information, if a criminologist wished to prove the broken
windows were a staged event, then Julia Venturney would have been the person
to focus on. She is the actual source to voluntarily offer cause and effect, and
provide motive for the damage.
Venturney testified ninth in line. 57 She knew the victim four months since July. The
witness lived in Room No. 1 at Millers Court, which is the same room recorded on
the victims death certificate.
[Police Statement] I occupy No. 1 room Millers Court; I am a widow, charwoman, but now living
with a man named Harry Owen.
I was awake all night and could not sleep. I have known the person occupying No.
13 room opposite mine for about 4 months. I knew the man who I saw downstairs
[at the Police Station] (Joe Barnett) he is called Joe, he lived with her until quite
57
Julia Venturneys Deposition, November 12, 1888: Ref. MJ/SPC, NE1888, Box 3, Case Paper 19.

Spedding 2008-2016
49
recently. I have heard him say that he did not like her [because -deleted] going
out on the streets; he frequently gave her money. He was very kind to her. He said
he would not live with her while she led that course of life.
She used to get tipsy occasionally. She broke the windows a few weeks ago whilst
she was drunk. She told me she was very fond of another man named Joe, and
he had often ill-used her because she cohabited with Joe (Barnett).
I saw her last about [1.40 -deleted] p.m. yesterday [November 8th.] Thursday
about 10 a.m.
This witness told the police she saw the victim the day before the murder and that
it was the latter who broke both windows in the room a few weeks ago whilst being
drunk. The victim was fond of another man named Joe; he was a costermonger.
It is unknown if the police searched for this costermonger called Joe, or if they
suspected him with a motive of jealousy due to the information this witness gave.
But it did secure a motive at the time, something the other ripper murders did not.
A costermonger was, strictly speaking, a man who took fruit and vegetables around
streets in a cart or barrow for sale. They sold about half of their apples to the
general public in penny or halfpenny measures, and only a few to households and
shops. There was obviously a great deal of munching on the East End streets at
the time. The traders who carried oranges, chestnuts, walnuts, or Spanish nuts
around the streets of London were not considered costermongers, but were
generally classed by the regular men with the watercress-women, the spratwomen, the winkle dealer, and such others, whom they generally considered
beneath them. Oh the ignominity of being a winkle-seller. This class system
amongst the costers was quite rigid. One-half of the entire class generically called
costers were costermongers proper, the business passed down from father to son,
and jealously guarded as a business sometimes for many generations. The other
half was comprised of three-eighths those of Irish origin, and one-eighth
mechanics, tradesmen, and Jews.
Jane Coram (2007) 58
As to whether Venturney heard any singing coming from Room No. 13, following is
how the press reported the Coroner tried to coerce this witness into testifying she
heard singing even though she did not:
Daily Telegraph
November 13, 1888.
CORONER
58
Did you hear any noises in the Court?
Coram, Jane. The Victorian Leader: Apple Fritters and Sarsaparilla. Ripperologist No. 77, March 2007.

Spedding 2008-2016
VENTURNEY
I did not. I heard no screams of murder nor anyone singing.
CORONER
You must have heard deceased singing?
VENTURNEY
Yes; I knew her songs. They were generally Irish.
50
The original inquest documents has Venturney say: I went to bed on Thursday
night about 8 oclock. I could not sleep all night; I only dozed. I heard no one in the
Court. I heard no singing. I heard no scream -deceased often sung Irish songs.
CONFIRMED We may conclude with certainty, that Venturney heard no singing or
noises in Millers Court during the night.
Turning to the second suspected event, this would be the key to the door. This key
went missing days before the murder. A trick was used by victim and former
boyfriend to open the door . . .by putting a hand through the broken window and
pushing the latch back (Morning Advertiser, Nov. 13. 1888). The person who
informed the investigators of this missing key was the former boyfriend, as
Inspector Abberline mentioned at the inquest.
Barnett did not give this information on November 9th when he gave his police
statement; neither did he inform Coroner and Jury about it on November 12th at his
inquest appearance. So he must have told the Inspector about it in some private
interview before Inspector Abberline took the stand at the inquest. This delay
however created a scene that could have been avoided in our opinion.
The landlord never mentioned the key had been missing; we believe it is because
he was not told about it. The occupants of the room must already have been
charged with the broken windowpanes and having to add to this payment to buy a
new lock would have been out of their budget. The best to do would have been to
keep this information from the landlord.
A small group of researchers believe the landlord, together with the rent-collector,
must have had spare keys to all the rooms in Millers Court. It is logical to believe
this, because fires were not a rare occurrence with paraffin lamps. It would have
been easier, and cheaper for landlords to have spare keys to open lodgings in
cases of emergencies instead of having to break the locks with pickaxes.
Building upon this logical level of understanding, we could ask, why was the
landlord requested to break down the door to Room No. 13 assuming he had a
spare key? In order to come up with a logical answer, we need to see what the
authoritative persons said on the subject.

Spedding 2008-2016
51
The original inquest records have Dr. Phillips uncertain whom it was who gave the
order for the door to be broken open or who broke it open. According to the court
reporter however, Dr. Phillips was certain whom it was who gave the order, and
whom it was who broke open the door.

November 12, 1888.
I remained until about 1:30 [p.m.] when the door was broken open; I
think by Mr. McCarthy -I think by direction of Superintendent Arnold
who had arrived.
Daily Telegraph
November 12, 1888.
I remained until about 1.30 p.m., when the door was broken open by McCarthy,
under the direction of Superintendent Arnold.
Though we can notice a minor contradiction, it is of little concern, because the

medical officers sayings do not help answer our question. So let us turn to what
Inspector Beck said. We remind our readers that Inspector Beck was amongst the
first responding officers to be called to the crime scene; his official police report on
the case has not been found.
Inspector Walter Beck deposition | extract

November 12, 1888. 59
I do not know by whose order the door was forced. I was there. The
doctor was the first to enter the room.
Though Inspector Beck tells Coroner and Jury he didnt know on whose orders the
door was forced open, he eludes to inform if he knew who it was who forced it open.
He does however corroborate Dr. Phillips being the first person to enter the crime
scene. But we are still without an answer to our question.
We will read Inspector Abberlines contribution to the subject: I had an intimation
from Inspector Beck that the dogs had been sent for; Dr. Phillips asked me not to
force the door but to test the dogs if they were coming. We remained until 1.30
[p.m.] when Superintendent Arnold arrived and informed me that the order as to
[the] dogs had been countermanded, and he gave directions for the door to be
59

Spedding 2008-2016
52
forced. Inspector Abberline tells us it was Dr. Phillips idea not to force open the
door due to some hounds that were on the way. The medical officer never informed
the public who gave him this information. The Inspector does not say who it was
who forced open the door; only who gave the order.
We can see that neither Dr. Phillips, nor Inspectors Beck and Abberline, mention
they requested the landlord (or anyone else) for a key. It seems as though it was
automatically assumed no key was available. This assumption however, tells us
that some discussion about a spare key must have been made at the time but was
not recorded.
On the other hand, if McCarthy told the authorities he had a spare key, this may
have put him under the radar that he and his keeper might have entered the crime
scene before they informed the police. But this is not necessarily true. As
mentioned, it cannot be disclosed that landlords must have had spare keys in cases
of emergencies.
The question still remains unanswered as to why the landlord did not present a
spare key to Room No. 13. Some researchers have suggested the act of breaking
open the door with a pickaxe, to get to the mutilated corpse, may have been
dramatically staged for public benefit. It seems the most logical answer to this
subject at this point in our research.
First to find the body A majority of researches fall into the trap of stating that it
was the rent-collector who first found the body. But this is only their personal
suggestion, because no police report of the first responding officers has been
found, which would have actually recorded who it was who first found the body.
Bowyer and the landlord were the first individuals to report the crime to the police;
they never stated they were the first to discover the body.
Duration of the crime
Half an hour (Dr. Gabe)
One and a half hours (Inspector Henry Moore)
Two hours (Sir Melville Macnaghten)
Knowing on average the duration of how long a crime was committed may assist in
estimating time of death. Most important however, is that the duration of a crime
may also be inserted into a timeframe of events, and will allow for verification or

Spedding 2008-2016
53
elimination of witness times that do not coincide with when the offender must have
fled the crime scene.
We have three on record opinions of how long it took the offender to perpetrate the
Millers Court crime. It must be noted that only one medical officer is included in
these reports, and he is Dr. Gabe who stated to the press the crime had a duration
of half an hour, which would not coincide however with the rippers manner to being
a quick operator.
QuAppelle Progress
November 16, 1888.
He said in all his experience in dissecting rooms never had he seen such a ghastly
sight. What could be called the corpse laid, as he saw it, nearly naked on a blood
engorged woolen mattress. It must have been the work of perhaps a full half hour,
said the physician.
Inspector Moore thought the crime took longer; about one and a half hours.
Pall Mall Gazette
November 4, 1889.
He cut the skeleton so clean of flesh that when I got here I could hardly tell whether
it was a man or a woman. He hung the different parts of the body on nails and over
the backs of chairs. It must have taken him an hour and a half in all.
However, this length of time (an hour and a half) redirects from the rippers usual
tactics, which was to get the job done and get out of the area. This is especially
true should the offender not have known the Millers Court resident activities or the
victims. Too many variables surrounded the offender. But even the FBIs Criminal
Investigative Analysis Unit fell into the trap by stating the offender spent a
considerable amount of time at the scene (FBI 1988).
We need to ask this question. How could the offender have known that no friend or
other resident would not visit the victims room on that particular day or time? We
know that the victim was in debt; being a prostitute, she would have hunted down
clients at any hour and on any day. In addition, it was the Lord Mayors Show; any
of the victims friends could have sought out the victim that morning.
Unless the offender knew (beyond doubt) that there would be no disturbance, it is
highly unlikely the killer would have spent so much time (30-90 minutes) at the
crime scene by relying upon chance. The same variables apply for Sir Melville

Spedding 2008-2016
54
Macnaghten (Chief Constable CID of the Metropolitan Police 1890-1903) and his
prediction that the offender took two hours to complete the crime.
The last murder is the only one that took place in a room, and the murderer must
have been at least 2 hours engaged.
Sir M. Macnaghten (1894) 60
Dr. Phillips was never asked at the inquest what his opinion was, not only of the
duration of this particular crime, but neither was he asked to give an opinion as to
estimating when death could have occurred.
This may have been a mistake from Coroner and Jury, but in the meantime, the
Home Office had requested from Thomas Bond to create a detailed report, which
report may have been brought to the Coroners attention, since it was written two
days before the inquest opened.
Offenders (scientific) knowledge
Profile Report (1888) | extract

November 10, 1888.
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 of a butcher or horse slaughterer or
any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.
The above medical opinion seems to be based on favouritism instead of forensic
evidence. All four canonical ripper murders were perpetrated outside a contained
mortuary environment, in semi-dark areas, under extreme pressure against time,
and under terrible weather conditions. We may also state, that undertaking a
murder and mutilation under such circumstances would have been highly illogical
for one stranger offender to accomplish.
In order to exonerate a person or persons from the medical community,
reconstruction of the injuries (in the same environment and conditions) would have
needed to be implemented. Such an implementation has not been recorded for the
Millers Court victim; it was however done for the Chapman murder, but only to a
certain degree.
60
Macnaghten, Melville. Macnaghten Memoranda. 1894. Web. Casebook. Web. 2010.

<http://www.casebook.org/images/memo.pdf>

Spedding 2008-2016
55
The Times
September 20, 1888.
Dr. Phillips: . . .he himself could not have performed all the injuries he described,
even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour, if he had done it in a deliberate
way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it probably would have taken
him the best part of an hour.
Dr. Phillips gave two forensic opinions but one type of murderer who could have
mutilated and extracted Chapmans internal organs: If the abdominal mutilation,
including the removal of internal organs, were performed by a surgeon who was in
no hurry, it would have taken him more than 15 minutes. On the other hand, if a
surgeon who was performing his duties in a post-mortem room and had inflicted the
abdominal mutilation including the removal of internal organs, it would have taken
the best part of an hour.
Dr. Phillips made no reference on the subject on the Millers Court murder during
the month of November; he was however noted to commenting on the subject a
month later, but compacting the subject towards the method as opposed towards
the offenders medical knowledge.
The Star
December 24, 1888.
He [Dr. Phillips] has always maintained the opinion that the murderer was a man
of considerable surgical knowledge. . . The murderer, he says, must be a man
who had studied the theory of strangulation, for he evidently knew where to place
the cord so as to immediately bring his victim under control. It would be necessary
to place the cord in the right place. It would be a very lucky stroke for a man at the
first attempt to hit upon the proper place.
Culprit(s) Dr. Bond believed the offender to have been just one man. Some of his
colleagues spawned a different opinion in a brief profile of the Whitechapel
murderer published in the British Medical Journal, dated Saturday, September 22,
1888, and entitled The Whitechapel Murders. The view stated in that particular
profile, was that more than one person perpetrating these horrible crimes -one
sane, another insane (BMJ 1888) 61 was high in opinion.
D.C. Dew and the Secretary of State to the Home Office, Mr. Henry Matthews,
shared one opinion, that the Millers Court murderer had probable assistance in
escaping from the area after the crime was committed.
61
The Whitechapel Murders. British Medical Journal. Vol. II., September 22, 1888.

Spedding 2008-2016
56
In the case of Kelly there were certain circumstances which were wanting in the
earlier cases, and which made it more probable that there were other persons who,
at any rate after the crime, had assisted the murderer.
Mr. Henry Matthews, Secretary of State to the Home Office 62
Mr. Matthews statement has triggered some doubts amongst researchers as to

what he meant by certain circumstances, which were wanting in the earlier cases,
yet found in the Millers Court crime. In order to clear the fog, the entire content of
this subject needs to be looked at.
Questions pertaining to a reward for the capture of the ripper were raised in a
debate in Parliament on the day the murder inquest began, November 12th. The
questions were addressed to Mr. Matthews forwarded by Robert Graham, 63 William
Hunter, 64 and British banker Samuel Montagu. 65
We remind our readers that Sir Charles Warren had requested a pardon be issued
for the capture of the ripper in October. 66 It was not until November when a Cabinet
decision finally agreed upon such a pardon, but there was no reference to a reward
being included. 67
M U R D E R. P A R D O N
Whereas, November 8 or 9, in Millers Court, Dorset
Street, Spitalfields, Mary Janet Kelly was murdered by
some person or persons unknown, the Secretary of State
[Henry Matthews] will advise the grant of Her Majestys
Gracious Pardon to any accomplice, not being the person
who contrived or actually committed the murder, who shall
give such information and evidence as shall lead to the
discovery and conviction of the person or persons who committed the murder.
(Signed) Charles Warren
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis/Metropolitan Police
Office, 4, Whitehall Place S.W.
November 10, 1888.
62
HC Deb: 23 November 1888, Vol. 331, cc15-6. Web. 2009. <http://hansard.millbanksystems.com>

Constituencies: Lanarkshire North Western from 1886 till 1892.
64
Constituencies: Aberdeen North from 1885 till 1896.
65
Constituencies: Tower Hamlets Whitechapel from 1885 till 1900.
66
Metropolitan Police Files, 1/55.
67
Ref. HO 144/221/A49301B.
63

Spedding 2008-2016
57
The debate in Parliament began with Graham when he asked Matthews if he

contemplates offering any additional reward for the capture of the White-chapel
murderer? The question is a tail to some previous rewards to which the public
domain has no record of. No reward, as far as we know, that came from the
government, was ever granted to capture the ripper. Many well-off community
members and newspaper editors did offer a reward, but none came from official
decisions.
Before Matthews had the chance to answer, Hunter intervened with a question of
his own. He wished to know if Matthews was willing to extend the current pardon
(issued on November 10th) to the preceding murders. In particular, in reference
to a murder that was committed in December 1887; according to the dying
testimony of the woman, several persons were concerned in the murder. Hunter
did not mention a reward, but it is unsure to which victim he referred to.
Evans and Skinner stated that many press reports later in the year listed the
murder of an unknown woman in Christmas week 1887 as the first of the
[Whitechapel] murders, but extensive research has failed to find this murder
(Evans and Skinner 2000).
Up to now, we have two questions to be answered by Matthews. One pertained to
an additional reward to which we have no information from which official a
previous reward had been offered to capture the ripper; and the other question was
if the royal pardon would be extended to previous murders, since one murder was
committed in December 1887.
Let us read how Matthews responded to the first question asked by Graham and if
the Secretary of State to the Home Office would contemplate offering any
additional reward for the capture of the White-chapel murderer? We will get a clear
answer on this subject, which will explain that Grahams style of putting the question
had nothing to do with the Whitechapel murders, but was referred to previous
rewards given by the government in 1883 and 1884.
Mr. Matthews response to Mr. Graham
Owing to the public interest taken in this question, I hope the House will allow me
at greater length than is usual in answering a Question to state why I have hitherto
refrained from offering a reward in the Whitechapel cases.

Spedding 2008-2016
58
Before 1884 it was the frequent practice of the Home Office to offer rewards,
sometimes of a very large amount, in serious cases. In 1883, in particular, several
rewards, ranging from 200 to 2,000, were offered in such cases as the murder
of Police Constable Bowies and the dynamite explosions in Charles Street and at
various Railway Stations. These rewards, like the reward of 10,000 in the Phnix
Park murders, proved in effectual, and produced no evidence of any value.
In 1884 there was a change of policy. Early in that year a remarkable case
occurred. A conspiracy was formed to effect an explosion at the German Embassy;
to plant papers upon an innocent person; and to accuse him of the crime in order
to obtain the reward, which was expected. The revelation of this conspiracy led the
then Secretary of State (Sir William Harcourt) to reconsider the whole question of
rewards. He consulted the Police Authorities both in England and in Ireland; and
the conclusions he arrived at were -that the practice of offering large and
sensational rewards in cases of serious crime is not only ineffectual, but
mischievous; that rewards produced, generally speaking, no practical result
beyond satisfying a public demand for conspicuous action; that they operate
prejudicially by relaxing the exertions of the police; and that they tend to produce
false, rather than reliable testimony.
He decided, therefore, in all cases to abandon the practice of offering rewards, as
they had been found by experience to be a hindrance, rather than an aid in the
detection of crime. These conclusions were publicly announced, and acted upon
in two important cases in 1884.
One, a shocking murder and violation of a little girl at Middlesbrough; the other, the
dynamite outrage at London Bridge, in which case the City authorities offered a
reward of 5,000.
The principle thus established has since been adhered to, I believe, without
exception at the Home Office. The whole subject was reconsidered in 1885 by Sir
Richard Cross in a remarkable case of infanticide at Plymouth; and again in 1886
by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) in the
notorious case of The Queen v. Louisa Hart. On both occasions, after careful
consideration, and with the concurrence of the best authorities, the principle of
offering no reward was maintained, and rewards were refused.
Since I have been at the Home Office I have followed the Rule thus deliberately
laid down by my Predecessors. I do not mean that the Rule may not be subject to
exceptions -as, for instance, where it is known who the criminal is, and information
is wanted only as to his hiding place, or on account of other circumstances of the
crime itself.

Spedding 2008-2016
59
In the Whitechapel murders, not only are these conditions wanting at present, but
the danger of a false charge is intensified by the excited state of public feeling.
I know how desirable it is to allay that public feeling; and I should have been glad
if the circumstances had justified me in giving visible proof that the authorities are
not heedless or indifferent.
I beg to assure the hon. Member and the House that neither the Home Office nor
Scotland Yard will leave a stone unturned in order to bring to justice the perpetrator
of these abominable crimes, which have outraged the feelings of the entire
community.
Matthews then answered Hunter who wished to know if the pardon would be
extended to the preceding murders. In particular, in reference to a murder that
was committed in December 1887.
Mr. Matthews response to Mr. Hunter
With regard to the Question of the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Hunter),
it is not proper that I should give an answer on the sudden. I will, however, carefully
consider the question.
Eleven days after the above debate, another was raised in Parliament on November
23rd. One question was addressed to Matthews, coming just from Hunter. The
question was whether Matthews was prepared, in the case of the Whitechapel
murders, other than that of the woman Kelly, to offer a free pardon to any person
not being the actual perpetrator of the crimes? It was more or less the same
question asked days earlier. The response was the well-known one but will be
repeated for continuity purposes.
Mr. Matthews response to Mr. Hunter
I should be quite prepared to offer a pardon in the earlier Whitechapel murders if
the information before me had suggested that such an offer would assist in the
detection of the murderer. In the case of Kelly there were certain circumstances
which were wanting in the earlier cases, and which made it more probable that
there were other persons who, at any rate after the crime, had assisted the
murderer.
Questions pop up after the entire subject has been studied. Remember Hunters
initial question on the topic, two days after the murder and on the same day the
inquest was ongoing:

Spedding 2008-2016
60
Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I wish to ask whether he
has taken into consideration the propriety of extending a free pardon -which, as I
understand, applies only to the last murder- [Kellys] to the preceding murders,
especially having regard to the fact that in the case of the first murder, committed
last Christmas, [1887,] according to the dying testimony of the woman, several
persons were concerned in the murder?
The answer at the time was that it was not proper to give an answer on the
sudden; and that the question would be carefully considered. Eleven days later,
the same question was put forward.
Mr. Hunter asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is
prepared, in the case of the Whitechapel murders, other than that of the woman
Kelly, to offer a free pardon to any person not being the actual perpetrator of the
crimes?
Apparently, Matthews was not taken again by surprise (on the sudden) as the last
time, and answered that if he had information from the previous murders, which
would assist in the detection of the murderer, then he was quite prepared to offer
a pardon in the earlier Whitechapel murders. So there was no evidence which
pointed a finger to some individual who could name the ripper in the previous
crimes, regardless of eyewitnesses who had come forward describing the man
seen talking to ripper victims before their deaths.
In the Millers Court crime however, Matthews said that it was more probable the
offender was assisted (probably in escaping) due to certain circumstances. We
believe D.C. Dew mentioned these certain circumstances:
With the state of that room in my mind, I cannot see how the murderer could have
avoided being covered from head to foot with blood. Some of these traces must
have remained when he reached his home or his lodgings. Yet no one came
forward to voice the suspicions which such a spectacle must have aroused. Proof
positive to my mind that the Ripper was shielded by someone.
Dew (1938)
For those who do not wish to take into account the Detective Constables opinion,
then these certain circumstances the Secretary of State referred to, could also
have been present in the previous murders; just because they were not detected
did not mean they did not exist.

Spedding 2008-2016
61
But take into account the only major and imminent assistance the offender would
have required before leaving the crime scene. A very close area to wash and some
clean clothes to change into. There was a tap outside Room No. 13. It was raining
all through the night and the morning continued with a drizzle, which would have
washed away any remains of washed bloodstains. An overcoat, or long jacket,
would have disguised any bloodstained clothing. Gloves would have disguised
bloody hands.
We believe these two elements (a very close area to wash and clean clothes to
change into) were taken into consideration; they were the certain circumstances
Matthews referred to. It logically triggered the government to issue a Royal Pardon
hoping that, whoever assisted the offender to wash up and change into clean
clothes, would come forward. To date, we have no information of a Jack the
Ripper being officially apprehended due to this Royal Pardon issue, and this can
be strengthened by the fact, that the arrest of the ripper was still being debated in
the House of Commons on July 18, 1889. 68
Murder weapon(s) No murder weapon was reported as being found at the crime
scene; neither is there any mention of what type of cutlery, utensils or maintenance
tools were found in the victims room apart from a kettle that had a melted spout.
Sometimes there is evidence of weapon use at a crime scene but no weapon can
be found there. For each crime scene it must be asked whether there exists
evidence that a weapon has been removed and, if so, what purpose could its
removal have served? If the answer to the first part of the question is no, answering
the second part of the question becomes unnecessary.
Chisum and Turvey (2007)
Evidence exists that the weapon(s) were removed from the crime scene, since no
household utensil of the time could have created the wounds inflicted on the victim.
The question to answer is why these weapons were removed and by whom -it
should not be inferred that the offender removed them, since we have no evidence
to support that.
Dr. Gabe had suggested that the offender had used a large and keen knife, and Dr.
Bond suggested it was . . .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
butchers knife or a surgeons knife (Profile Report 1888).
68
HC Deb: 18 July 1889, Vol. 338, cc730-1 730. Web. 2009. <http://hansard.millbanksystems.com>

Spedding 2008-2016
62
None of these medical officers elaborated further upon their choice of weapon or if
they thought it was used for all the injuries the victim suffered.
Dr. Phillips made no reference on the subject; singular in this case since he had
been involved in giving his medical assistance at the autopsy of another murder
just one month earlier. In that particular case (the Eddowes murder) at least two
murder weapons were reported as having been used on the victim.
Dr. Browns written statement | extract

October 1888. 69
They [sic] 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 long.
Dr. Bond described his choice of weapon identical to Dr. Browns two weapons,
and merged these two descriptions into being one weapon.
As to why this particular weapon or weapons were removed from the crime scene,
one reason would be that it would have pointed a finger to the offender.
In the time we talk of, we do not hear of any fingerprint procedures being
implemented by the authorities investigating the ripper crimes; this fact holds a
small amazement if one considers fingerprinting had been introduced pre-700 B.C.
used on clay tablets for business transaction in ancient Babylon. 70
In addition, October of 1880 had fingerprint identification revolutionized by a man
called Dr. Henry Faulds, whose contribution led to forensic identification of
criminals.
71
It is unsure if the Millers Court offender knew of these revolutionized
fingerprint identifications, because only then would it explain why the weapons had
to be removed from the crime scene.
One other way a weapon could identify an offender, would have been its type.
Thomas Bond did mention some types -. . .a clasp knife, a butchers knife or a
surgeons knife- leaving open a very wide range of professions to choose from,
that could not have been particularly helpful to the police at the time.
69
Ref. Coroners inquest (L), 1888, No. 135, Catherine Eddowes inquest, 1888 (Corp. of London Record Office).
Rankin, Stephanie. Forensic Science Central. History of Forensic Science. Web. 2010.
<http://forensicsciencecentral.co.uk>
71
Faulds, Henry. Nature 22, p. 605: On the Skin-furrows of the Hand, October 28, 1880. Web. 2010. <http://galton.org>
70

Spedding 2008-2016
63
Cause of death Three medical opinions have been recorded as to the actual cause
of death. Medical officers Bond and Phillips opined severance of the right carotid
artery, and Dr. Gabe opined severance of the left carotid artery. These different
opinions inject circumstantial medical evidence into the case.
Crime committed Researchers cannot agree amongst themselves when the crime
was committed. This is singular, being there is medical evidence, which would
dissolve all dispute.
Profile Report | extract

November 10, 1888.
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
oclock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder.
Dr. Bond mentioned finding partly digested food, which would be evident should
the victim have died within two hours of eating. Lester Adelson utilized the following
gastric emptying times: Stomach begins to empty within 10 minutes of swallowing,
light meal takes to 2 hours to digest, a medium meal 3 to 4 hours and a heavy
meal 4 to 6 hours (Cox 2009). 72
The food being fish and potatoes, according to Adelson would have been a
medium meal, doubling this timeframe to 3 or 4 hours as Dr. Bond reported. This
would mean the victim eat on November 8th between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. with death
on November 9th between 1 a.m. and 2 a.m. This is forensic evidence and cannot
be changed by hypothesizing some error of report.
Partially digested food
Death less than 2 hours after eating
Undigested food
Death at 1 to 2 hours after eating
Stomach empty
Death within 4 to 6 hours after eating
Small intestine empty
Death around 12 hours after eating
A good question researchers have tried to answer is where the victim eat, because
no witness came forward to testify they saw her in a public place after 8 p.m. when
the former boyfriend last saw her alive. The press however had many witnesses
who saw her after 8 p.m. in a public place.
72
Cox, William A. Early Postmortem Changes and Time of Death. Web. December 22, 2009. Web. 2016.

Spedding 2008-2016
64
1) The earliest the victim was seen was between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m., which
coincides with the times she had something to eat.
November 17, 1888.
He [Maurice (or Morris) Lewis a neighbour] saw her on the previous (Thursday)
night, between ten and eleven, at the Horn of Plenty [pub] in Dorset Street. She
was drinking with some woman and also with Dan, a man selling oranges in
Billingsgate and Spitalfields markets, with whom she lived up till as recently as a
fortnight ago.
The man called Dan mentioned by these reporters was not the former boyfriend
who lived with the victim up till as recently as a fortnight ago. Dan (or Daniel) was
his brother.
The Star
November 10, 1888.
His [Joseph Barnetts] brother met her on the Thursday evening [November 8th]
and spoke to her.
2) Other reports coming in had the landlord mention the victim was seen after 11
p.m. in another pub, the Britannia. She wasnt with either of the Barnett boys, but
with a young man with a dark moustache. Again, the time coincides with the times
the victim must have eaten.
Evening News
November 10, 1888.
McCarthy to reporters: At eleven oclock last night [November 8th] she was seen
in the Britannia public house at the corner of this thoroughfare, with a young man
with a dark moustache. She was then intoxicated. The young man appeared to be
very respectable and well dressed.
3) One last report had the victim arrange some sexual activity, which must have
been before midnight when the pubs closed.
The Star
November 10, 1888.
This much, however, has been found, that some payment was made by the man
for the use of the room; that that payment was received by someone residing in
the house; and that the murderer and his victim entered the place in the small
hours of Friday morning - between one and two oclock as near as can be gathered.

Spedding 2008-2016
65
November 8th
9-11 p.m.
10-11 p.m.
11 p.m.
Victim eat
Victim seen in the Horn of Plenty pub
Victim seen in the Britannia pub
November 9th
1-2 a.m.
Estimated time of death
This subject will be continued when we study the Autopsy Report.

Forensic entomology Whichever report on forensic entomology -use of insects in
death investigations- one researches, an identical fact, as the one that follows,
crops up:
Blowflies arrive quickly, usually within just minutes of death, attracted by the gases
released by the newly dead body. They then start to lay their eggs around the nasal
and oral cavities where these gases, associated with the start of decomposition,
are escaping.
Wynne Parry (2011) 73
Forensic entomologists can estimate the amount of time that has elapsed since the
person died. They can estimate time of death, whether the body has been moved
and whether drugs or toxins were involved in the crime. This is because insect life
cycles act as precise clocks, which begin within minutes of the death (Sharma
2015). 74 Though blowflies deposit their eggs within 1 to 3 hours of arrival, they do
not lay their eggs at nighttime.
What seemed as a mishap on Dr. Bonds side was that he made no mention of
seeing blowflies or insect colonization on the victim, though he gained access to
the crime scene by 2:00 p.m. A forensic entomologist would argue that Thomas
Bond would have witnessed the infestation of insects on the corpse by this time.
If the body is found covered with flies -not eggs- but have no odors or other signs
of decay, then the body has been dead for less than 1 hour. Once eggs have been
laid, and are now hatching, the person has been dead for at least 12 hours.
Roxana Ferllini (2002) 75
Dr. Bond estimated Kelly died 12 hours prior his arrival, giving an estimated time of
death for 01:00-02:00 a.m. Yet, he did not mention seeing fly eggs hatching when
73
Parry, Wynne. Bugs of death may help solve murder cases. Web. Live science. Nov. 11, 2011. Web. 2012.
Ruchi, Sharma et al. Various methods for the estimation of the post mortem interval from Calliphoridae: A review.
Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences. Volume 5, Issue 1. March 2015. Print.
75
Ferllini, Roxana. Silent Witness. Ontario: A Firefly Book, 2002. Print.
74

Spedding 2008-2016
66
he arrived, that should have been manifesting by then (Ferllini 2002). On the other
hand, the complete absence of insects would suggest clues as to the sequence of
postmortem events as the body was probably either frozen, sealed in a tightly
closed container, or buried very deeply (Byrd ABFE). 76
We know the room where the victim was found had a cold environment; Dr. Bond
stated this. However, it could not have dropped to freezing temperature which
would excuse the complete absence of insects (Byrd ABFE); we also know the
body was not sealed or found buried.
It is important to note that this estimated time of death could vary greatly from the
legal time of death, which is the time recorded on the death certificate, or the
physiologic time of death, which is when vital functions actually cease within 4 or 6
minutes. The legal time of death is the time the body was discovered or the time a
doctor or other qualified person pronounced the victim dead. 77
Did Dr. Bond know of such scientific facts that played an important role in forensics?
He did recognize rigor and stomach content, which allowed him to estimate the
victims time of death; logically, he would have also known of forensic entomology.
What he may not have known however is the applied aspects to process these
findings.
Apart from an early case report from China (13th century) and later artistic
contributions, the first observations on insects and other arthropods as forensic
indicators were documented in Germany and France during mass exhumations in
the late 1880s by Reinhard and Hofmann, whom we propose recognizing as cofounders of the discipline.
Mark Benecke (2001) 78
Turning the coin onto the other side, should Dr. Bond have known the applied
aspects of forensic entomology, then his none observance of it would have meant
something, which only forensic entomologists could be able to answer.
--Minutes after death, we have the arrival of blowflies
--Dead less than 1 hr we have a body covered with flies
--Dead at least 12 hours we have eggs laid and hatching
The woman must have been
dead about 12 hours. (Profile Report 1888).
76
Dr. J. H. Byrd. Web. American Board of Forensic Entomology. <http://www.forensicentomology.com>

Dr. D. P. Lyle of the Medical and Forensic Lab.
78
Benecke, Mark. A brief history of forensic entomology. Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd., 2001. Print.
77

Spedding 2008-2016
67
Death after fatal wound As to when the victim died after the fatal wound was
inflicted, forensic pathologists tell us that about 20-25% of cardiac output (blood
leaving the heart for any given time period) goes to the brain. Most of that goes
through the carotids, with smaller amounts going through other vessels. A person
has about 70mL of blood per kg body weight.
For the Millers Court victim, the body looks as though it had a weight of 50-57 kg
(8-9 stone). This comes to 3,5-4,0 liters of blood. Before 50% of blood loss (1.752.5 liters) the victim would have lost consciousness.
When a severed carotid is inflicted, blood loss is at 1 liter per minute, having the
victim dead within 1 to 2 minutes. As soon as the interruption of oxygen and
blood flow commences, permanent neural damage takes effect within 4 to 6
minutes later.

Spedding 2008-2016
68
III
The fly that sat on the pole of a chariot at the Olympic races and said
what a dust do I raise.
Sir Francis Bacon 79
Thema Cli & Essays: LIV
NOVEMBER 8 | Thursday
Sir Charles Warren (London Police Commissioner) informed the press he
forwarded his second resignation; it was accepted by November 12th.
80
Warrens
first resignation was officially reported in the press around September 1888. 81
NOVEMBER 9 | Friday
At 11:00 a.m., Dr. Phillips is notified of a murder; he arrived at Millers Court fifteen
minutes later to find Inspector Beck already present. 82 Inspector Abberline arrived
at 11:30 a.m. 83
By 12:30 p.m., Warren reported to the Home Office that information had been
received of a womans mutilated dead body found that morning inside a room in a
house at 26, Dorset Street in Spitalfields, London. A report of similar context was
sent to Godfrey Lushington (Permanent Under-Secretary). 84
The case was immediately placed in the hands of Sir Robert Anderson (Assistant
Police Commissioner). 85 Superintendent Thomas Arnold (Head of Whitechapel HDivision Police) arrived at Millers Court at 1:30 p.m. with Anderson following no
later than 1:50 p.m. (Daily Telegraph, Nov. 10. 1888).
At 2:00 p.m., other medical officers gained access to the mutilated corpse, though
it was Dr. Phillips who had already gained access to the body 30 minutes earlier.
This alone should have had this surgeons medical report, including his notes,
placed into the public domain. To date, this has not happened.
79
Simpson, David. Francis Bacon (1561-1626). Web. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN 2161-0002. Web. April
10, 2016. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/>
80
Metropolitan Police - Detective Department - Resignation of Sir Charles Warren. Web. Millbank Systems, HC Deb 12,
November 1888, Vol. 330 cc 899-900. Web. 2016. <http://hansard.millbanksystems.com>
81
The Star, September 5, 1888.
82
Dr. Phillips Deposition (November 12, 1888).
83
Inspector Abberlines Deposition (November 12, 1888).
84
(a) Ref. HO 144/221/A49301F, f2.; (b) Wikipedia contributors. Godfrey Lushington. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 4 May. 2016. Web. 2016.
85
Ref. HO 144/221/A49301F.

Spedding 2008-2016
69
Medical officers access the victims body

1.30 p.m. - 4.30 p.m.
(1) Dr. Phillips accessed the body at 1:30 p.m. 86
(2) Dr. Bond accessed the body at 2:00 p.m. 87
(3) Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown (City Police Surgeon) 88
(4) Dr. William Profit Dukes (obstetrician) 89
(5) Dr. Percy John Clark (Dr. Phillips assistant) 90
(6) Dr. Gabe (gynaecologist and paediatrician) 91
Anderson communicated with the Home Office at 4.00 p.m., informing the murder
was committed in Spitalfields which, he said, is in the Metropolitan Police
District. He added, It is believed that the murdered woman is a prostitute named
Kelly.
92
That same evening Dr. Phillips visited the House of Commons and met
with Charles Stuart-Wortley. We were unable to find any information as to the

subject of this conference, but the most logical subject discussed would have been
the Millers Court murder. As to why Dr. Phillips would converse with the House of
Commons in regards to the murder of a prostitute named Kelly, has not been
officially recorded.
Official Timeframe | November 9, 1888.
11:00 a.m.
Inspector Beck present at the crime scene

Dr. Phillips notified of the murder
11:15 a.m.
Dr. Phillips arrives at Millers Court
11:30 a.m.
Inspector Abberline arrives at Millers Court
12:30 p.m.
Warren reports the crime to the Home Office

Permanent Under-Secretary informed
Anderson undertakes the case
1:30 p.m.
Arnold arrives at Millers Court; gives the order to break down the
front door to Room No. 13
Dr. Phillips first to enter the crime scene
86
Dr. Phillips lived at 2, Spital Square, an area of sober looking brick houses in the heart of the silk-district of London, the
center from whence that employment springs by which the weavers are supported. Knight, Charles. London, Vol. II.
87
Dr. Bond lived at 7, The Sanctuary in Westminster.
88
Dr. Brown lived at 17, Finsbury Circus.
89
Dr. Dukes lived at 75, Brick Lane.
90
Dr. Clark lived at 22, Margaret Street in Cavendish Square. His presence at the crime scene was reported in The Times on
November 10, 1888.
91
Dr. Gabe lived at 16, Mecklenburgh Square. His presence at the crime scene was reported in the Bournemouth Visitors
Directory, on November 14, 1888.
92
Ref. HO 144/221/A49301F, ff. 78-9.

Spedding 2008-2016
1:50 p.m.
Anderson arrives at Millers Court 93
2:00 p.m.
Dr. Bond arrives and enters the crime scene
4.00 p.m.
Body taken to the Mortuary
70
Anderson communicates with the Home Office

Evening
Dr. Phillips visits the House of Commons
NOVEMBER 10 | Saturday
A memo is sent from the Home Office to Warren informing of a Cabinet decision to
issue a pardon to anyone but the actual offender in the murder of the prostitute
named Kelly; reward would not be included.
94
The Prime Minister (Marquis of
Salisbury) notified her Royal Highness, Queen Victoria. 95

Such a royal pardon had been contemplated as early as the beginning of October
1888, when a letter from Warren saw the light regarding its offer to any accomplices
for the capture of the ripper. 96
4 Whitehall Place S.W.
9th October 1888.
Sir, In reply to your immediate [text missing] just received on the subject of [text missing]
for the information of the Secretary of State, that during the last three or four days I have been
coming to the conclusion that useful results would be produced by the offer of a pardon to
accomplices. Among the variety of theories there is the possibility that the murderer is someone
who during the daytime is sane, but who at certain periods is overtaken in his mind; and I think it
possible in that case that his relatives or neighbours may possibly be aware of his peculiarities
and may have gradually unwittingly slid into [the roles of accomplices].
On the other hand, if it is the work of a gang in which only one actually commits the murder,
the free pardon to the accomplice may make the difference of information being obtained. As a
striking commentary on this matter, I have today received a letter from a person asserting himself
to be an accomplice and asking for a free pardon; and I am commencing a communication with
him through an advertisement in a journal. 97
This letter is probably a hoax, for we have received scores of hoaxing letters, but on the
other hand it may be a bona fide letter and if [text missing] would be to the discovery of the
murderer by omitting to offer the pardon; and I cannot see what harm can be done in this or any
further case by offering a pardon.
I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
CHARLES WARREN
93
Though Anderson was put in charge of the case, he arrived at Millers Court quite late, at least not until after one medical
officer and other police officials had already entered the crime scene.
94
Ref. HO 144/221/A49301B.
95
Ref. CAB 41, 21/17 Public Record Office.
96
Metropolitan Police Files, 1/55.
97
We were unable to trace the advertisement or letter that Warren wrote of.

Spedding 2008-2016
71
According to the governments favourite newspaper, the autopsy on the Millers

Court victim started this day at 07:30 a.m., was attended by five medical officers,
and was concluded at 1:30 p.m. (The Times, Nov. 12. 1888). Other reports noted
one more medical officer was present: Dr. Charles Alfred Hebbert,
98
medical
assistant to Dr. Bond.

Medical officers attending the autopsy on the Millers Court victim
07.30 a.m. - 1.30 p.m.
(1) Dr. Phillips (2) . . .and his assistant Dr. Clark
(3) Dr. Bond (4) . . .and his assistant Dr. Hebbert
(5) Dr. Brown
(6) Dr. Duke
Later in the day, Dr. Phillips was reported as having made copious notes of the
result of the post-mortem examination (The Echo, Nov. 10. 1888); these copious
notes (if made) have not to date been deposited into the public domain.
In closing the events of this day, Dr. Bond wrote his Profile Report and annexed
the Autopsy Report -jointly written according to the press with Dr. Phillips.
The Echo
November 10, 1888.
Dr. Phillips has only vaguely indicated to the local police the result of his
investigations, but a report on the question has, it has been asserted, been jointly
made by him and Mr. Bond, and submitted to Sir Warren.
98
Address: Westminster.

Spedding 2008-2016
72
IV
Assuming that the victim and the offender are strangers amounts to
speculation rather than scholarly analysis.
Eric Hickey (1986) 99
The day the Millers Court crime was reported to the police was a feast day for St.
Theodore the martyred patron saint of soldiers. It was also a day that held the
celebration of the Lord Mayors Show. 100 To accommodate for the latter event, City
Police Commissioner Sir James Fraser issued certain regulations.
The City Press
November 7, 1888.
From the hour of ten a.m. until the Lord Mayors procession has returned to the
Guildhall, and for such longer period as may be found necessary, the following
streets and approaches thereto will be closed to all wheeled traffic:
Gresham Street West, St. Martins-le-Grand, Cheapside, Poultry, Mansion House
Street, Cornhill, Leadenhall Street, Billiter Street, Fenchurch Street, Mincing Lane,
Great Tower Street, Eastcheap, King William Street, Queen Victoria Street,
Cannon Street, St. Pauls Churchyard, Ludgate Hill, Fleet Street, Victoria
Embankment, Queen Street and King Street.
No procession other than that of the Lord Mayor, nor any organized body of
persons shall on that day be, or pass in, or along any street or thoroughfare within
the City of London and its liberties.
The extra police in the district were being withdrawn in order to allow them to
perform duty in The City during the Lord Mayors Show (Evening Post, Nov. 9.
1888). This sparked an article in an American newspaper whose reporters
pondered how the Millers Court murder had been skillfully timed, on which the city
thronged with sight-seers, every available city detective and policeman was on
street duty (Philadelphia Times, Dec. 3. 1888).
Frederick N. Charrington of the Great Assembly Hall on Mile End Road had
arranged a big feed for the poor (Daily News, Oct. 29. 1888). The Lord Mayor
entertained 400 inmates of Lewisham Workhouse to a dinner of roast beef, plum
pudding, beer, and the usual etceteras. In addition each man had a quarter-pound
99
Hickey, Eric. "The Female Serial Murderer, 1800-1986." Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology. Vol. 2, No. 2, October
1986, pp. 72-81. Print.
100
800 Years of the Lord Mayors Show. Web. Lord Mayors Show. London. Web. May 2016.
<https://lordmayorsshow.london/history/>

Spedding 2008-2016
73
of tobacco, and every woman half a pound of tea. In the evening the inmates were
entertained with music (The Star, Nov. 10. 1888).
Pedigree of the victim Unfortunately, it is nowhere documented in an official
capacity. This is singular considering how previous canonical ripper victims had
their lives well documented by the police, mostly from family members.
The Star
November 12, 1888.
The authorities have been making inquiries concerning the soldier [suspected to be
the victims brother] who, according to [Joseph] Barnett, was in the second battalion
of the Scots Guards. That regiment is now in Dublin, and it is understood that inquiries
will be immediately prosecuted there.
There could not have been any successful resolution with those police inquiries; no
family member attended the victims burial.
The meager details of the victims life come from Barnett, who gave second-hand
information to the police and repeated it at his inquest appearance. Joseph
Barnetts narrative of her life history, based on Kellys version of her own story,
reads like a penny-dreadful rendition of the harlots progress (Walkowitz 1992).
Barnett stated the victim told him she was a native of Limerick; reporters
investigated. The result was that two days after the murder, a telegram received
from that place says that inquiries made in that city have failed to identify the latest
Whitechapel victim as a native of the town (The Star, Nov. 12. 1888).
There is no follow-up from reporters on the subject, so other directions were taken,
basically trying to track down Barnetts sayings that the victim, at the age of
seventeen, had been in service of a Mrs. Rees, and that her father, John Kelly
was a foreman of some iron works, lived at Carmarthen or Carnarvon. 101
Cardiff Western Mail
July 1888.
The daughter of the late Dr. Hopkins of Carmarthen, who previous to his death,
two or three years ago had become notorious in the town for the shady kind of skill
now attributed to his daughter. At the death of the doctor, Miss Hopkins -who
became the wife of Mr. John Rees- removed to Swansea where she practiced very
openly as a kind of ladies doctress or accoucher. She inserted advertisements in
101
Police statement of Joseph Barnett (November 9, 1888): Ref. MJ/SPC, NE1888, Box 3, Case Paper 19.

Spedding 2008-2016
74
the papers, and, it is stated, did a very large business -the newspapers of course
having no proof of any conduct on her part.
Further investigation managed to unravel that Mrs. Rees stood committed to the
next assizes on a charge of procuring abortion, and who is the daughter of a
medical man formerly resident at Carmarthen (The Star, Nov. 12. 1888). She was
convicted in December 1888 and served a sentence of 10 years. It is unconfirmed
if this woman was the same Mary Jane Florence Rees who was still imprisoned
in the year 1891. 102
A large fire At the time of the crime, a large fire was lit in Room No. 13, as
reported by Inspector Abberline.
Inspector Abberlines deposition | extract

November 12, 1888.
I have taken an inventory of what was in the room. There had been a
large fire so large as to melt the spout off the kettle. I have since gone
through the ashes in the grate and found nothing of consequence,
except that articles of womans clothing, had been burnt, which I
presume was for the purpose of light as there was only one piece of
candle in the room.
It is important to emphasize how any item found at a crime scene may already be
evidence of everyday activities (Turvey 2012). Based upon this, we need to go into
certain points.
Point #1 The Inspectors account tells us the kettle was a preexistent item at the
crime scene, because of the inventory he took. Being it was preexistent and in
use, we have no information how he formed an opinion the kettles spout melted on
the day of the murder as opposed to having melted at an earlier date. We would
have had the same doubt in regards to the broken windowpanes and the locked
door if we did not have those witnesses stating such events occurred prior the
murder.
Point #2 The ashes in the grate were produced from articles of womans clothing
that had been burnt. So the kettles demise was a consequence to the burning of
womans clothing.
102
R.G. 12/556, f.140. Research was conducted by members -and is courtesy of Jack the Ripper Forums. Web.
<http://www.jtrforums.com/> Web. 2012.

Spedding 2008-2016
75
Point #3 Inspector Abberline presumed (was not certain) that the womans
clothing was burnt to facilitate the offender for the purpose of light. This
presumption came from the variable that only one piece of candle in the room was
found, as he mentioned.
Daily Telegraph
November 13, 1888.
ABBERLINE: There were traces of a large fire having been kept up in the grate,
so much so that it had melted the spout of a kettle off. We have since gone through
the ashes in the fireplace; there were remnants of clothing, a portion of a brim of a
hat, and a skirt, and it appeared as if a large quantity of womens clothing had been
burnt.
CORONER: Can you give any reason why they were burnt?
ABBERLINE: No; I can only imagine that it was to make a light for the man to see
what he was doing. There was only one small candle in the room, on the top of a
broken wine-glass.
The above points is all that Inspector Abberline tells us in regards to this large fire.
In order to pass some opinion on the subject, we will need more details and these
come from one witness, Maria Harvey who testified to leaving behind in the victims
room the following clothing and item:
A black crape bonnet with black strings
Two mens shirts and a mans black overcoat
One childs shirt and one little childs white petticoat
a ticket for a shawl pawned for 2 shillings
The police only produced the mans black overcoat to Harvey. As to the other
garments and the pawn ticket, Harvey said I have seen nothing of them since.
Should someone have taken the pawn ticket, the authorities would have asked
Harvey which pawnshop she used. The shop may have been put under
surveillance, but there is no possible way of knowing the result or if the missing
pawn ticket of 2 shillings was ever found.
Going by press reports, some mentioned the clothes burnt did not belong to the
victim, because her clothes were arranged near the fireplace. This is an intriguing
piece of information if true, because if one considers the veracity the victims body
was subjected to, it did not touch -not even by a thread- the victims clothing. Other
reports mentioned a hat and velvet jacket belonging to and worn by Kelly were

Spedding 2008-2016
76
missing (The Star, Nov. 12. 1888), thus contradicting previous reports. Nowhere
are the victims shoes reported as being found in the room.
What should be considered is if articles of womans clothing could have produced
a fire with the fierceness to melt a kettles spout. Victorian working class households
had kettles made of cast-iron usually heated over a coal fire producing hot water
for cleaning, washing, cooking and drinking. Cast-iron has a melting point of 1260
C (2300 F).
103
Unfortunately, there is no further information on the make of this
particular kettle found at the crime scene to delve deeper into the object.
Would such a fire the Inspector described have attracted neighbourhood attention
either from its glow through the windows of the room, or from the smoke through its
chimney? Yes, but no neighbour came forward to complain (or to state) they
thought it peculiar such a strong fire was burning from Room No. 13. There are two
possibilities why they would not have.
First possibility: The previous inquests on the murders of Nichols, Chapman, Stride
and Eddowes, managed to create a bad reputation in regards to how the witnesses
were treated. Most if not all had to lose a day or two wages to attend the inquests,
with witnesses complaining they were not getting what was due to them by law.
This was a strong motive for anyone in the neighbourhood to think twice before
coming forward in giving testimony.
Second possibility: The police fabricated the strength of the fire to come up with an
assumption (for public benefit) why no lantern or candles, beyond a half melted one
was used and found in the room. It would be a logical assumption for the police to
explain how the offender was facilitated with light.
The Times
November 12, 1888.
Wednesday night [November 7th] the dead woman purchased a halfpenny candle
at the neighbouring Chandlers Shop, [McCarthys] and on the room being
searched this candle was barely half consumed.
But the same reporters, two days earlier, were baffled: As the body could be seen
from the Court yesterday morning, [November 9th,] it is evident that, unless the
murderer perpetrated his crime with the light turned out, any person passing by
could have witnessed the deed (The Times, Nov. 10. 1888).
103
Metals Melting Temperatures. Web. Jewelry Artists Network. Web. 2016.

Spedding 2008-2016
77
D.C. Dew gave the impression that more than one candle was used to facilitate the
offender by saying, candles, [plural,] which had been used to light the room, had
been burned right down (Dew 1938); he did not specify if an investigation was
made which would explain with what money these candles had been purchased.
Most importantly, D.C. Dew once again contradicted Inspector Abberlines inquest
testimony who said only one piece of candle was found in the room.
Regardless how many candles were present, the length of time it takes to burn such
candles, to the point as found at the scene, may be established by experimentation
with a candle of precisely the same type. But this could only have been done at the
time where there were available candles of precisely the same type.
At the end of the day, it was only logical for some reporters to finally state that the
police were of the opinion that the murderer did his fiendish work in daylight, and
the clothes were burnt probably because they were bloodstained, which brings us
to the next element.
Missing evidence It is important, Turvey noted, when dealing with inferred
evidence to refrain from assuming that the offender must have removed it from the
scene, even when the reconstructionist knows precisely what it is (Turvey 2012).
Four items were not mentioned as being found at the crime scene: (1) The victims
corset (or stays); (2) the victims shoes; (3) a red handkerchief Hutchinson said his
foreign suspect gave to the victim; and (4), the pawn ticket of 2 shillings for a
shawl left by Harvey.
Whatever the actual case may have been in regards to which garments were burnt,
folded on a chair, or perhaps taken from the crime scene, we cannot state with
absolute certainty how the offender was facilitated with light, and this contributes to
a staged crime scene.

Spedding 2008-2016
78
Profile Report on the five Jack the Ripper murders by Thomas Bond
Requested
Written
Received
October 25, 1888.

November 10, 1888.
November 14, 1888.
On October 25th, the Assistant Police Commissioner, Robert Anderson, had stated
in a communication with Dr. Bond the purpose for this report, which was to receive
some reliable opinion on the amount of surgical skill and anatomical knowledge
probably possessed by the murderer or murderers. 104 The report was written with
some delay and may explain why it is riddled with inconsistencies that are
detectable to those who have studied all five canonical murders.
Profile September 1888 The East End of London harboured, within a population
of 72,142, the notorious Whitechapel Murders. A profile of the killer was published
in the British Medical Journal (Vol. II) dated Saturday, September 22, 1888, and
entitled The Whitechapel Murders. It is unknown if Dr. Bond contributed to this
particular criminal profile. Today, serial killers are classified into six different types
(Holmes and Holmes 2002). 105
1 The visionary serial killers who need to obey the voices.
2 The missionary serial killers who need to eradicate a certain group of people.
3 The thrill and/or 4 lust serial killers who need the overkill.
5 The gaining serial killers who need personal gain or profit from their victim.
6 The power controller serial killers who need absolute control over the victim and
will squeeze the life out of them by strangulation.
At least two modern types fit into the Millers Court offender: The thrill (or lust) killer
and the controller.
Though the following report is based on five victims, we will give emphasis on the
victim we are dealing with, and study what Dr. Bond perceived of her offender.
We have written in bold and blue text Dr. Bonds report for clarification purposes.
104
105
Ref. HO 144/221/A49601C, ff. 217-23.

Holmes, R. M., and Holmes, S. T. Profiling violent crimes: An investigative tool. CA: Sage, Thousand Oaks, 2002. 3rd ed.

Spedding 2008-2016
79
7, The Sanctuary,
Westminster Abbey,
[Saturday] November 10, 1888.
Dear Sir,
A49301C/21
Whitechapel Murders
I beg to report, that I have read the notes 106 of the 4 Whitechapel Murders viz:1. Bucks Row [Nichols murdered on August 31st]
2. Hanbury Street [Chapman murdered on September 8th]
3. Berner Street [Stride murdered on September 30th]
4. Mitre Square [Eddowes murdered on September 30th]
I have also made a post-mortem examination of the mutilated remains of a woman
[Kelly] found yesterday in a small room in Dorset Street.
107
1. 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 [Millers Court murder]
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 womans
head must have been lying.
This medical officer made it quite clear from the opening paragraph how all five
murders - no doubt were committed by the same individual, and so believed Jack
the Ripper was responsible for five murders only. Yet. . .
(1) Dr. Llewellyn was harshly contradicted at the time on his medical findings in
regards to the Nichols murder. As a consequence, a large quantity of
medical evidence in that case became circumstantial.
(2) Dr. Phillips and Coroner Baxter sparked a motive that was quickly
extinguished by the medical community on the Chapman murder. As a
consequence, a large quantity of medical evidence in that case became
circumstantial.
(3) Drs. Blackwell and Phillips could not agree upon the approach taken by the
offender when Stride was murdered. As a consequence, a large quantity of
medical evidence in that case became circumstantial.
106
107
We have no information from whom these notes came from which Dr. Bond relied upon to write his report.
There is no mention from Dr. Bond that additional medical officers attended the post-mortem examination.

Spedding 2008-2016
80
(4) Mr. Crawford (City Solicitor) corrected Dr. Browns estimated time of death
in the Eddowes murder. As a consequence, a large quantity of medical
evidence in that case became circumstantial.
(5) Superintendent Arnold did not believe Jack the Ripper killed the Millers
Court victim.
February 3, 1893.
Superintendent Arnold: I still hold to the opinion that not more than four of those
murders were committed by the same hand. They were the murders of Annie
Chapman in Hanbury Street, Mrs. Nicholls in Bucks Row, Elizabeth Stride in
Berner Street, and Mary Kelly in Mitre Square.
The name Mary Kelly the Superintendent referred to was the name Catherine
Eddowes gave the police upon her release from the police station the night she was
murdered; she also gave her address as 6, Fashion Street though she was lodging
at the time at 55, Flower & Dean Street. There was no official information, which
could have explained this contradiction, and Miss Phillips (Eddowes daughter)
testified her mother had told her she was married to a man called Kelly but she
never saw the marriage license.
Station Sergeant James Byfield | Written statement extract

October 1888. 108
I discharged her [Eddowes] after she gave her name and address
which she was unable to do when brought in. She gave the name of
Mary Ann Kelly, 6 Fashion Street, Spitalfields.
Dr. Bonds type of writing, though well organized and informative, steers his reader;
and that type of writing creates a consequence. From this point forward, whatever
evidence would be included in the report would have no influence on the reader of
the document.
As mentioned earlier in this work, there was no actual mention that would stress
the point the Millers Court victims throat was cut in a different direction from the
previous four ripper victims. This Profile Report we are dealing with only certified
some difference was present, by reporting arterial blood seen on the wall. Going
into some depth with this subject, we are interested in projected bloodstains, which
108
Ref. Coroners inquest (L), 1888, No. 135, Catherine Eddowes inquest, 1888. (Corporation of London Record Office).

Spedding 2008-2016
81
occur when a large volume of blood is propelled toward, and strikes a surface.
Large drops striking a vertical surface decelerate from air resistance and produce
a pattern without spines. The drops strike the surface and then characteristically
drip or run downward due to their large volume (Nordby 2006). 109
In the Millers Court murder case, the surfaces are two: The wooden wall partition
dealing with Dr. Bonds observation, and the wooden floor under the bed (at the
height of the bedstead) that was mentioned by Dr. Phillips and corroborated by
Thomas Bond in the Autopsy Report.
An interesting event on how blood acts came from Dr. Clement Harrisse Arnold
who testified in court during a murder trial in 1933. He told the Jury that arterial
blood can eject six inches (15.24cm) vertically and 18 inches (45.72cm) laterally
and it will continue to eject for the next 30 seconds.
Since arterial blood (in copious amount) ejects up to six inches vertically, the gap
between the bed where the victim was found in a supine position, and the wooden
wall partition where arterial blood splashes were seen, had a distance of eleven
inches (27.94cm). This is at least 5 inches short for the arterial blood to project from
where the victims neck must have been. This forensic fact tells criminologists that
the blood seen on the wall must have got where it did in a different way than was
mentioned.
Often at crime scenes, the physical evidence contradicts eyewitness testimony.
Physical evidence, including bloodstain evidence, is more reliable than evidence
based solely upon witness memory.
Nordby (2006)
The victims head must have been held no further away than six inches from the
wall when the right carotid artery was injured. It is possible to have been done this
way, and will justify the blood splashes on the wall, but will not justify the lack of
pooled blood beneath these blood marks.
This pool of blood (2 feet square) mentioned in the Autopsy Report was the same
pool of blood Dr. Phillips described seeing; so both medical officers described one
pool of blood at the height of the bedstead where the bed clothing was saturated.
Once again, this evidence points to the victim being held close to the wall and not
lying down when her throat was cut.
109
Web. Final Analysis Forensics. Web. May 2016. <http://www.finalanalysisforensics.com/>

Spedding 2008-2016
82
We will return to this subject further on in this work.

2. 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.
Dr. Bond must have erred. . .

(1) Nichols case: Victim was strangled from the front whilst standing. She was
subsequently laid on the ground where her throat was cut twice, and abdomen
mutilated. She was not murdered whilst in a supine position, nor did she have her
throat cut first and this can be seen from the forensic evidence at the time: When a
throat wound is inflicted after death, we will see a heavy oozing of blood flowing in
the line of gravity.
The Times
September 3, 1888.
With the aid of his [Police Constable Neils] lamp, he examined the body and saw
blood oozing from a wound in the throat.
Furthermore, no blood spatter will be found on or near the victims body,
110
and
none was found in the immediate area where Nichols was found murdered.
The Star
December 24, 1888.
. . .partial strangulation was first of all resorted to, and that when the victims were
by this means rendered helpless, the knife was used in such a manner as to
obliterate the traces of the act.
(2) Chapman case Victim was suffocated from the front whilst standing. She was
subsequently laid on the ground where her throat was cut twice, abdomen mutilated
and internal organ(s) removed. She was not murdered whilst in a supine position,
nor did she have her throat cut first.
The Star
December 24, 1888.
The evidence given by Dr. Phillips on 18 Sept. at the Hanbury Street inquest is
incontrovertible proof that Annie Chapman was partially strangled before her throat
was cutIn Dr. Phillips own words, I am of opinion that the breathing was
interfered with previous to death, but that death arose from syncope consequent
on the loss of blood following the severance of the throat.
110
Balch, Lewis. Homicide and Wounds contributed in Dr. Allan McLane Hamilton & Lawrence Godkin, A System of Legal
Medicine. New York, Cooper Union, 1894. Vol I. Print.

Spedding 2008-2016
83
The Star
December 24, 1888.
Dr. Brownfield: If he cut the throat along the line of the cord [used to strangle] he
would obliterate the traces of partial strangulation.
(3) Stride case There are two medical opinions on how the victim died, but nothing
was conclusive that would justify Dr. Bonds opinion.
Dr. Blackwell believed Stride was pulled from behind by the scarf found round her
throat; he could not say however if the throat was cut while she was still standing
or after she was pulled back.
Dr. Phillips believed Stride was grasped from the front (by the shoulders) and forced
to the ground and then had her throat cut. The latter reconstruction troubled
Coroner Baxter at the time who could not fathom how the attack was done this way
and not heard by those gathered close by in the International Working Mens Club.
But by December 1888, Dr. Phillips had formed a different opinion on the murder
of Elizabeth Stride.
The Star
December 24, 1888.
He [Dr. Phillips] has always maintained the opinion that the murderer was a man
of considerable surgical knowledge. . . The murderer, he says, must be a man
who had studied the theory of strangulation, for he evidently knew where to place
the cord so as to immediately bring his victim under control. It would be necessary
to place the cord in the right place. It would be a very lucky stroke for a man at the
first attempt to hit upon the proper place.
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 Berners Street, the discovery appears to have been made
immediately after the deed. In Bucks 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
oclock, 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.
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

Spedding 2008-2016
84
the food was taken, so one or two oclock in the morning would be the probable time of
the murder.
There are some researches in the public domain that do not follow this medical
officers findings in regards to the time he estimated the Millers Court victim died.
These researches are mostly distracted by the testimony of witnesses who heard
a scream of Murder! around 03:30 a.m. and/or just before 04:00 a.m. that either
came from within Millers Court, from the Chandlers Shop, or from somewhere in
the immediate area.
In order to dismiss Dr. Bonds estimated time of death, one will need to understand
what exactly it was that he forensically found at the time.
Point #1 In the Dorset Street case, the body was lying on the bed at the time of my
visit, 2 oclock, quite naked and mutilated as in the annexed report.
Dr. Bond states that he himself saw the body at 2:00 p.m. as we see it depicted in
the Millers Court crime scene photograph (MJK1). This is quite clear, so we will
not dwell further upon this point, though it could be argued if the body was quite
naked as described. No crime scene photograph however assists to form an
opinion of our own if the body had any garment on.
Dr. Phillips opinion was that the victim had only her under linen garment on her
(Deposition 1888), and D.C. Dew remembered, the girls clothing had nearly all
been cut from her body (Dew 1938).
Remember the order in which these three witnesses saw the mutilated body.
D.C. Dew was amongst the first responding officers who arrived with Inspector Beck
to the crime scene, no later than 11:00 a.m. He viewed the corpse through the
window. At 11:15 a.m., Dr. Phillips also viewed the corpse through the window.
These two men gave an identical description of what the victim wore: An under
linen garment that had nearly all been cut from her body. Three hours later,
around 2 p.m., Dr. Bond arrived and gained access to the mutilated corpse; he
described the body was naked.
1. Victims clothing nearly cut from her body
Dew (police)
2. Victim in under garment
Phillips (doctor)
3. Victim naked
Bond (doctor)

Spedding 2008-2016
85
Either the undergarment had been removed from the corpse by Dr. Phillips and/or
the authorities, or Dr. Bonds view of how a female body was seen naked had to do
with his personal upbringing.
Point #2 Rigor Mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the
examination.
Dr. Bond does not say where on the victims body he saw rigor set in; but it is
imperative to understand the following forensic fact: Although rigor develops in all
muscles simultaneously and at the same rate it usually becomes recognizable in
the smaller muscle groups first, hence you tend to see it first in the face, jaw and
neck followed by the development of rigor in the trunk and extremities (Cox 2009).
Though Dr. Bond did not elaborate, we know from the above forensic fact that he
saw rigor had already set in at 2:00 p.m. around the face, jaw and neck of the
victim. As time progressed during the onsite examination (lasted till 4:00 p.m.) the
medical officer must have noticed rigor develop in the trunk and the end part of a
limb, as a hand or foot.
2:00 p.m. Rigor seen around the face, jaw and neck
By
4:00 p.m. Rigor seen in the trunk, hands and feet
Point #3 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.
A forensic observation to remember is this: If rigor is broken before it reaches its
maximum development (6 to 12 hours) it will develop in the new position. However,
once rigor has reached its maximum development it will not redevelop. Thus, if rigor
has reached its maximum development [as Dr. Bond reported] and the body is
moved, consequently assuming a different position, rigor will not change such that
the body conforms to the new position. This is one of the means you can use to tell
if the body has been moved at the scene (Cox 2009).
At 2:00 p.m., when the onsite examination began, the body had not been moved
(presumably by the offender) for the past 6 to 12 hours; this gives a locked time of
when the offender left the crime scene. Now, unless the killer just stood or sat there
observing/admiring the result, the body remained untouched from 02:00 a.m. and
onwards, and this is also supported by Dr. Phillips deposition.

Spedding 2008-2016
86

November 12, 1888.
From my subsequent examination, I am sure the body had been
removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from that
side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition.
Something very important to consider, is that Dr. Phillips gained access to examine
the corpse 30 minutes before any other medical officer did.
The Star
November 10, 1888.
Dr. Phillips, on his arrival, carefully examined the body of the dead woman, and
later on again made a second examination [at 2:00 p.m.] in company with Dr. Bond
(from Westminster); Dr. Gordon Brown (from the City); Dr. Duke (from Spitalfields);
and, Dr. Phillips assistant.
At the end of the day, Dr. Phillips was the most important witness to interview at
the time, being he was the first professional individual to see the body. It remains
an unfortunate moment in the case when this mans medical evidence was
suppressed from the public.
Dr. Phillips rightly stated that he was sure the body had been removed subsequent
to the injury, because in order the offender inflict the mutilations seen, having the
body remain in one spot would have been impossible. Once these mutilations
ended by 02:00 a.m., rigor set in as Dr. Bond described. More importantly, this
forensic fact tells us an average time when the victim died: No later than 02:00 a.m.,
and Dr. Bond corroborated this by saying: The body was comparatively cold at 2
oclock [p.m.] and the remains of a recently taken meal were found in the stomach
and scattered about over the intestines.
Fortifying this time of death would have been the observation of livor mortis -the
settling of blood on the victims body. Dr. Bond made no mention of it.
In a general sense livor can provide some insight into the postmortem interval
through its degree of development and whether a body has been moved after
death. Livor found on the back of a body lying prone suggest that body has been
moved several hours after death.
Cox (2009)

Spedding 2008-2016
87
Not to underestimate other signs that appear after death, take into consideration
the following crime scene and mortuary photographs.
In photograph #1, the victim clearly shows livor on the shoulders, the shoulder
blades, the arms and neck. This means the body had been moved out of a supine
position, 1-2 hours after death, and flipped over to a prone position.
In photograph #2, the victim clearly shows livor on the right side of the face and
forehead, yet photograph #1 shows the victims head turned in the opposite
direction; towards the right.
Because neither photograph corroborate each other, we may conclude that the
victim died in a supine position; the livor marks on the shoulders, the shoulder
blades, the arms and neck tell us this. What happened next was for public benefit.
Within an hour after death, the victim was flipped over with her head resting on its
right cheek; this allowed her face to be looking towards the camera. Within two
hours of her death, the victims head was turned the opposite way (towards the
right) to rest on its left cheek as seen in photograph #1; the face would be away
from the camera.
Another fortifier that would have sealed time of death would have been some
mention of the coccyx (tailbone). In those who have died in a supine position you
will often note a yellowish discoloration to the skin overlying the coccyx. This is a
feature of compression of the skin against the bones of the coccyx (Cox 2009).
Point #4 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 oclock in the morning would be
the probable time of the murder.

Spedding 2008-2016
88
Though we went into this subject earlier, we can mention some additional
information before abandoning it. The victim was definitely last seen alive between
7 and 8 p.m. on November 8th, when Joseph Barnett, Maria Harvey and Alice
Albrook visited her in Room No. 13. But we have the press stating another witness,
Elizabeth Prater, also saw the victim that evening an hour later, at 9 p.m.
Maria Harveys deposition | extract

November 12, 1888. 111
I saw her last about five minutes to seven last night, Thursday
[November 8th] when Barnett called. I then left; they seemed to be on
the best of terms.
November 17, 1888.
Alice Albrook: The last time I saw her was Thursday night, [November 8th,] about
eight oclock, when I left her in her room with Joe Barnett, who had been living with
her.
The Star
November 12, 1888.
Joseph Barnett: I last saw her alive, continued witness, between half-past seven
and a quarter to eight on the night she was supposed [our emphasis] to have been
murdered.
The Star
November 10, 1888.
Elizabeth Prater: . . .the last time I saw her alive was at about nine oclock on
Thursday night. I stood down at the bottom of the entry, and she came down. We
both stood talking a bit, thinking what we were going to do, and then she went one
way and I went another.
When appearing before Coroner and Jury, Prater gave a different story; she also
changed the time she went out that night.
Daily Telegraph
November 13, 1888.
I left the room on the Thursday at five p.m., and returned to it at about one a.m. on
Friday morning. I stood at the corner until about twenty minutes past one. No one
spoke to me.
111

Spedding 2008-2016
89
This would be a good enough area in our work to add the above witness testimony
for continuity purposes.
Joseph Barnett
Illustrated Police News,
November 24, 1888.
Courtesy of Wiki: Jack the Ripper
Joseph Barnett was third in line to be called by the police

for a statement, but first in line to appear at the inquest.
Should the police have put importance on Bowyer and
McCarthys statements, then it would have been them and
not Barnett who would have first appeared at the inquest,
being they were supposed to have been the first to discover the crime.
Statement of Joseph Barnett now residing at 24 & 25 New Street, Bishopsgate [a
common -deleted] labourer lodging-house. 113
I am a porter on Billingsgate Market, but have been out of employment for the past
3 or 4 months. I have been living with Marie Jeanette Kelly who occupied No. 13
Room, Millers Court.
I have lived lived [sic] with her altogether about 18 months, for the last eight months
in Millers Court, until last Tuesday week (30 ulto) when in consequence of not
earning sufficient money to give her and her resorting to prostitution, I resolved on
leaving her, but I was friendly with her and called to see her between seven and
eight p.m., Thursday (8th) and told her I was very sorry I had no work and that I
could not give her any money.
I left her about 8 oclock same evening, and that was the last time I saw her alive.
There was a woman [no name given] in the room when I called.
In consequence of not earning sufficient money to give her, and her resorting to
prostitution, I resolved on leaving her.
The deceased told me on one occasion that her father named John Kelly was a
foreman of some iron works at [sic] lived at Carmarthen or Carnarvon; that she had
a brother named Henry serving in [the] 2nd Battn. Scots Guards, and known
amongst his comrades as Johnto, and I believe the Regiment is now in Ireland.
She also told me that she had obtained her livelihood as a prostitute for some
considerable time before I took her from the streets, and that she left her home
112

Victorians referred to low-end lodging houses as common houses, in order to distinguish them from other middle-class
boarding establishments. Members of the working poor were the most frequent residents. . .: Crooks, Katherine. Jack the
Rippers Unfortunate Victims: Prostitution as Vagrancy, 1888-1900. Dalhousie University, 2015. Print.
113

Spedding 2008-2016
90
about 4 years ago, [in 1884,] and that she was married to a collier, who was killed
through some explosion. I think she said her husband name was Davis or Davies.
We notice Barnett told the police he was residing at 24-25, New Street in
Bishopsgate, which was Bullers lodging-house situated close to Bishopsgate
Police Station. According to Rob Clack, Bullers lodging-house was demolished in
1908 to make way for an extension to Bishopsgate Police Station. 114
We have no information from the authorities, nor from Barnett himself, how his
lodging at Bullers was being paid for; he was supposed to be out of work at the
time though he used to work as a porter on Billingsgate Market, a trade that was
sadly abolished in April of 2012 when licenses were withdrawn by the City of
London Corporation. 115
At the time Barnett gave his police statement, he had been unemployed since July
or August (past 3 or 4 months), which raises a question as to how the rent of
Room No. 13 was being paid for during those months. But, this witness gives the
impression the room was only occupied or rented by the victim, which would
automatically eliminate himself from being responsible in sharing the room
expenses or paying part of the rent.
When Barnett got up and left the victim on October 30th, he gave two versions
explaining why; the first is from his police statement: In consequence of not earning
sufficient money to give her, and her resorting to prostitution, I resolved on leaving
her. So Barnett told the police that the victim resorted to prostitution before the
month of October and this was because he hadnt sufficient earnings.
We can deduce that the victim resorted to her old trade of prostitution when the
hubby remained unemployed in July or August. This however will be challenged at
the inquest, when Caroline Maxwell will state that ever since Barnett left the victim
in late October, the latter obtained her living as an unfortunate and not earlier as
Barnett stated. If this is correct, we are without an answer as to how the summer
months rent was paid for. But more on this subject later.
Barnett continued to say that the last time he saw the victim alive was on Thursday,
November 8th between 7 and 8 p.m.; a woman was with them, but he did not give
the police her name. And there ends his written statement. He now has two days
114
115
Jones, Richard. A Conversation with Rob Clack. Web. Jack the Ripper Tour, September 2, 2015. Web. 2016.
Gentle author, The Last Fish Porters of Billingsgate Market. Web. Spitalfields Life, May 10, 2012. Web. 2013.

Spedding 2008-2016
91
to fill in any gaps he could have left out and present a new story before Coroner
and Jury.
Description of Joseph Barnett
Age:
30
Build:
Medium
Height:
5ft. 7in.
Features: Fair complexion, blue eyes and moustache

There is an interesting description of Barnett on Casebook, and how he probably
had a speech impediment called echolalia, [echo of speech,] which caused him to
repeat the last words spoken to him when replying to a question. 116
Though there is no actual evidence that Barnett suffered some type of speech
impediment, the witness Caroline Maxwell tells us the victim suffered from one.
Evening News
November 10, 1888.
Caroline Maxwell: She [the victim] was a very quiet young woman, and had been
in the neighbourhood about two years. She spoke with a kind of impediment. She
belonged, I think, to Limerick, and had evidently been well connected.
At the inquest, two days later, reporters had Barnett employed by the riverside
(The Times, Nov. 13. 1888), and he himself stated he resides (present tense) at
the same address he gave the police, but almost immediately told Coroner and Jury
that he now lived at his sisters house, 21, Portpool Lane, Grays Inn Road. Staying
at his sister will give him the how he learned that the victim was his former partner.
He will not say this to Coroner and Jury, but to a reporter.
Manchester Times
November 17, 1888.
I heard there had been a murder in Millers Court, and on my way there I met my
sisters brother-in-law, and he told me it was Marie.
Another newspaper reported Barnett did not hear from his sisters brother-in-law
about the murder, but was sent for (The Echo, Nov. 9. 1888) by the police. Other
newspapers wrote he voluntarily went to the police 117 without stating how he first
heard of the murder.
116
117
Suspects Barnett. Web. Casebook. Web. 2016. <http://www.casebook.org/suspects/barnett.html>

(a) Daily Telegraph, November 10, 1888; (b) Evening News, November 10, 1888.

Spedding 2008-2016
92
However he was notified, Barnett did not say where he saw the body to identify it;
only that he identified it by the ear and the eyes. Upon seeing the body, Barnett
said he identified it as the woman he had an affair with; he identified the ear
(singular), to which we have no particular information how the ear looked like to be
uniquely recognizable; and the eyes (plural), to which we are not told if the eyes
had anything in particular to be distinguish from another womans blue eyes. Such
testimony can easily be shredded, as his brothers can be.
Unknown how the police found Daniel Barnett, or at what time, he was requested
to identify the body through the broken window on November 9th (The Star, Nov.
10. 1888). When D.C. Dew visited the crime scene and peeked through the window,
he said the room was semi-dark; when the scavengers peeked through the window
at 09:00 a.m., the reporter said the room was very dark. It would have been semidark or very dark for Daniel Barnett also.
Additionally, the face of the woman Kelly, when her body was found, resembled a
bloody ball. The nose, ears and cheeks were missing (Marion Daily Star, Nov. 12.
1888); and the Autopsy Report stated both ears had been partly removed with the
victims face hacked beyond recognition of the features.
We see how Barnetts identification of the victim was a hypothesis; it was not an
actual identification, as it was not an actual identification for McCarthy or Bowyer.
We may question today how such testimonies were taken so seriously at the time
by the authorities.
Towards the end of the nineteenth century, many believed criminals could be more
or less distinguished for their high-cheek bones and protruding jaws;
118
or if they
had the appearance of having a malignant scowl, an air of dogged endurance, a

crafty smoothness of external aspect evidently concealing a depth of dangerous
cunning, 119 they must have been criminals.
Evening News
November 10, 1888.
One unfortunate foreigner, whose physiognomy was certainly not prepossessing,
was taken into Commercial Street Police Station, when it turned out that that was
the third time he had been arrested on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper, in the
course of these murders. What with his odd face, his deprecatory shrugs and
118
119
Mayhew, The Morning Chronicle survey of labour and the Poor, pp 239-240. Web.
Carpenter, M. Our Convicts, Vol. 1. First published 1864. Reprinted Montclair, New Jersey: Patterson Smith 1969. Print.

Spedding 2008-2016
93
posturing, and his broken English as he tried to answer the interrogatories put to
him, his examination was irresistibly comic. How dye manage to get into trouble
like this, then? demanded an officer.
This superhuman burden of identifying criminals by jaws and scowls was put on
the shoulders of the police to detect and distinguish in this way from the rest of the
population who and who was not a criminal (Havelock). 120 This was such a problem
at the time that a Home Office Committee was setup to enquire into the best way
of identifying criminals.
Home Office Committee Report (1894)
121
It may at the outset be stated in general terms that the practice of the English police
is always dependent on personal recognition by police or prison officers. This is
the means by which identity is proved in criminal courts, and, although this scope
is extended by photography, and it is in some cases aided by devices as the
register of distinctive marks, it also remains universally the basis of the methods
by which identity is discovered. Even with regard to local criminals, the difficulty of
personal recognition becomes very great in the large centers of population.
The number of criminals seen by each officer is so great that it is impossible after
any considerable interval for any but a man endowed with a singularly good
memory to remember more than a few of them; and unless the memory is aided
by photographs and registers, mere personal recognition is insufficient to secure
the identification of those persons who repeatedly come before the courts.
This is especially the case in London, where not only the criminal but the ordinary
population is constantly moving from one district to another, and where an offender
might be arrested in a dozen police divisions and convicted in a dozen different
courts, without being seen twice by the same officer.
Even today, a photograph of a criminal scowling from a mug shot is preferred to

being released to the public as opposed to the criminal shown in his homely
environment prior an arrest. Fear always sells without effort and secures obedience
from the viewer.
Leaving aside how accurately or not the Barnett boys identified the body, Joseph
Barnett gave his second version of why he left the deceased on October 30th: I
left her because she had a person who was a prostitute whom she took in and I
objected to her doing so, that was the only reason, not because I was out of work.
120
Ellis, Havelock. The Criminal, pp 206, 214 and 229., quoted in Emsley, Crime and Society p. 78. Web.
Report of a Committee appointed by the Secretary of State to inquire into the best means available for identifying
Habitual Criminals with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, 1894, Parliamentary Papers, c. 7263. Italics in original.
121

Spedding 2008-2016
94
As far as the original inquest records go, Barnett was not asked the reason of his
breakup. But the court reporter did hear the Coroner ask him for a reason.
Daily Telegraph
November 13, 1888.
CORONER Why did you leave her?
BARNETT
Because she had a woman of bad character there, whom she took
in out of compassion, and I objected to it. That was the only reason.
Barnetts responsibility to find money to pay for the overdue rent was simple enough
to conclude; he had shared the room with this woman for eight or ten months. So
in the real world, if Barnett did rent the room with the deceased from the very
beginning, upon his first exit on October 30th, the landlord would have tracked him
down to pay the rent, because if the hubby could just get up and leave without
paying, then so could the girly.
The matter of this rent amount (29 or 30 shillings equivalent to 1,50) that was owed
by the residents of Room No. 13, is peculiar, and abolishes us leaving this subject
too soon.
The amount owed was for 6 or 7 weeks accommodation; it raises the question if it
was possible this amount to have accumulated and allowed by the landlord. But
notice how this rent owing business gave a perfectly logical excuse as to why
Bowyer was sent to Room No. 13 to discover the crime. It was an identical excuse
the press used for the young McCarthy boy when he opened the door and saw the
body in the passage.
Yet, the rent-collecting subject is not the peculiarity here; what is peculiar is the
outstanding amount of 1,50 including the landlords mention of it to the press and
the authorities. Surely McCarthy had no need to inform anyone of how much the
victim owed. Besides, during the time of the murder, around 39.2 percent of the
79,000 residents of Whitechapel lived on or below the poverty line (Crooks 2015
referencing Haggard (2007). 122
It is doubtful that an East End prostitute and her runaway hubby could have ever
paid off 6 or 7 weeks of overdue rent. We must conclude that something is missing
from Barnetts testimony as is from McCarthys as far as the renting arrangements
122
Haggard, Robert F. Jack the Ripper as the threat of outcast London. Attributed in Jack the Ripper: Media, Culture
History. New York: Manchester University Press, 2007. Print.

Spedding 2008-2016
95
this couple had with the landlord. As to why the latter made the amount public, can
only be that he had set out to gain the money from somebody who would hear of it.
In Barnetts written police statement, he first put the blame on himself for being
unemployed; he then reasoned his girlfriend resorted once again to prostitution in
July or August. At the inquest, he shifted the blame to a prostitute stranger,
excluding himself of any blame.
Barnett then told Coroner and Jury the time it was when he left the deceased on
October 30th; between 5 and 6 p.m. If he was not coached to say this, then he was
thick. No man leaves a woman after living with her for 18 months, drowning in debt,
and then feels the urge to stand before strangers and tell them the time it was when
he broke up with her. It doesnt work that way.
In his police statement, Barnett said he last saw the victim alive on Thursday,
November 8th between 7-8 p.m.; but in the original inquest records, he said he last
visited her between 7.30 & 7.45 the night of Thursday before she was found.
Keeping it compact, we shall say he visited her from 7 p.m. till 8 p.m. as he originally
told the police when his mind was fresh for detail.
We do not know why Barnett would have doubted the actual day the victim was
murdered, but he did however say this, according to the press.
The Star
November 12, 1888.
I last saw her alive, continued witness, between half-past seven and a quarter to
eight on the night she was supposed to have been murdered.
If it took Barnett 5 to 10 minutes to get to Bullers lodging-house in Bishopsgate, he

would have arrived there by 8:30 p.m. -if he did not first divert somewhere else. The
newspapers give details telling us he was at the lodging-house playing, until half
past twelve, when he went to bed (Daily Telegraph, Nov. 10. 1888).
It is not clear who corroborated his alibi, but Barnett then said at his inquest
appearance there was a female with us on Thursday evening when we were
together, she left first and I left shortly afterwards. Again, he gives no name of who
this person was, and his sayings talk of one woman visiting. Yet, at least one more
woman will come forward to testify that she also visited the victim that evening whilst
Barnett was there.

Spedding 2008-2016
96
According to the press version of his testimony, the one woman Barnett said visited
the victim was a resident of Millers Court.
Daily Telegraph
November 13, 1888.
CORONER Was there any one else there on the Thursday evening?
BARNETT
Yes, a woman who lives in the court. She left first, and I followed
shortly afterwards.
A day earlier, another report has Barnett name the woman who visited: . . .he lived
happily with her [the victim] until she brought another woman, whom he called Julia,
to stay in the house (The Times, Nov. 12. 1888). There was a woman called Julia
Venturney who lived in Room No. 1 at Millers Court. This is the same room number
recorded on the victims death certificate.
(3.) The coroner, after the termination of an inquest on any death, shall send to the
registrar of deaths whose duty it is by law to register the death such certificate of
the finding of the jury and within such time as is required by the Registration Acts.
Melsheimer (1888) / Coroners Act 1887
REGISTRATION DISTRICT Whitechapel

1888. DEATH in the sub-district of Spitalfields in the County of Middlesex
Death Certificate No. 526
When and where died 9th November 1888 - 1, Millers Court (Christ Church)
Name and surname Marie Jeanette KELLY otherwise DAVIES
Sex/Age Female, about 25 years
Occupation Prostitute
Cause of death Severance of the right carotid artery; wilful murder against some
person or persons unknown | Violent
Signature, description, and residence of informant Certificate received from R.
MacDonald, Coroner for Middlesex. Inquest held 12th, November 1888.
When registered November 17, 1888 | W. Edwards Registrar

Spedding 2008-2016
97
Should an error have been detected on the death certificate, it would have been
the Coroners duty to certify under his hand to the officer having the custody of the
register in which such information is entered, the nature of the error and the true
facts of the case as ascertained by him on such evidence, and the error may
thereupon be corrected by such officer in the register by entering in the margin
(without any alteration of the original entry) the facts as so certified by the coroner
(Melsheimer 1888 / Coroners Act 1887).
We have not been able to discover why the Coroner, for such an important
document as a death certificate, would have recorded such erroneous data. But if
one wishes to be particular, another error can be noticed on the document, and it
is the name (Marie Jeanette KELLY otherwise DAVIES), which did not come from
police investigation, but from secondhand information given by Barnett.
Leaving aside the errors on the death certificate, there is a small number of
researchers who have come to the conclusion that this Julia who Barnett
mentioned to The Times reporters, was Julia Venturney. However, this woman told
the police she last saw the victim much earlier than when Barnett visited:
Julia Venturneys police statement | extract
November 12, 1888. 123
I saw her last about [1.40 -deleted] p.m. yesterday [November 8th.]
Thursday about 10 a.m.
Going by her police statement, it is doubtful this Julia that Barnett saw was
Venturney. We base this upon one single fact, and that is that she was already
renting a room in Millers Court. Being this as it may, we cannot find any excuse as
to why she would have been taken in by the victim out of sympathy as Barnett
mentioned. One other newspaper told its readers that a young prostitute named
Lizzie Albrook was also in the room when Barnett visited.
November 17, 1888.
Albrook: I knew Mary Jane Kelly very well, as we were near neighbours. The last
time I saw her was Thursday night, about eight oclock, when I left her in her room
with Joe Barnett, who had been living with her.
And one more woman visited the victim that same evening.
123

Spedding 2008-2016
98
Maria Harvey deposition | extract

November 12, 1888. 124
I saw her last about five minutes to seven last night, Thursday
[November 8th] when Barnett called. I then left; they seemed to be on
the best of terms.
Thursday, November 8th.
10:00
Julia Venturney visits the victim; Barnett not present
18:55
Maria Harvey visits the victim; Barnett is present
19:00-20:00
Joseph Barnett visits the victim; one woman is present
20:00
Lizzie Albrook visits the victim; Barnett is present
According to the two women who visited that evening, both saw Barnett there; he
however only referred to one woman, suspected to be called Julia.
Barnett then goes into his extraordinary reference of secondhand information in
regards to the victims pedigree and was congratulated on it by the Coroner. At one
point, he said the victim, on several occasions asked him to read about the
murders; she seemed afraid of someone. We can only assume he meant the ripper
murders. We can consider a logical reason why the victim would have wanted
Barnett to read to her about the murders, and it would have been to indulge him
into sympathizing with her prostitute friend(s) who would sleep over. Besides,
according to his second version, that was the only reason he broke up with her. So
this afraid of someone business that Barnett injected into his testimony should not
infer the victim was being blackmailed or knew something others didnt.
Barnett concluded his inquest testimony by saying the victim did not express fear
of any particular individual, except when she rowed with me, but we always came
to terms quickly. Barnett it seems, apart from being an irresponsible person, also
had a temper, which had the victim fear him when they argued.
A newspaper gave an account how Barnetts brother met with the victim on
Thursday, November 8th, and spoke to her (The Star, Nov. 10. 1888). Daniel
Barnett was never called to testify.
***
124

Spedding 2008-2016
99
There can be no doubt that the victim resorted once again to prostitution when
Barnett remained unemployed; logically, this would have been in the summer
months of July or August. However, Caroline Maxwell testified to seeing the victim
resort to prostitution after Barnett left her in October.
If we are to believe Maxwells testimony, then its not conclusive when the victim
went back on the streets; nor how the rent and expenses were being paid whilst
Barnett was unemployed. It harbours suspicions that in order to cope paying for the
room expenses and daily nourishment, Room No. 13 was let out to prostitute friends
to accommodate their sexual activities.
This would have been a good enough motive to explain why the landlord did not
kick the couple out: I sent for the rent because for some time past they had not
kept their payments regularly. This arrangement would have allowed for the rent
to go sky high (1.50p) by the month of November. This is strengthened if we take
into account the sexual visit paid for in the early hours of November 9th.
The Star
November 10, 1888.
This much, however, has been found, that some payment was made by the man
for the use of the room; that that payment was received by someone residing in
the house; and that the murderer and his victim entered the place in the small
hours of Friday morning - between one and two oclock as near as can be gathered.
Barnett seems to have had a temper, which had the victim fear him when they
argued. Was he capable of murder most foul would be an interesting debate for
criminal psychologists to answer.
The Autopsy Report notes the victims ears were partly removed, making it
impossible Barnett to have identified the body by ear, hair and/or eyes. Reporters
mentioned he had said he identified the body by her hair and eyes (Evening Post,
Nov. 12. 1888).
It is fairly certain, that Barnett could not have identified, beyond a reasonable doubt,
the mutilated corpse was Kelly; neither could his brother identify it by just looking
through a broken window into a semi-dark room. These are absurd witness
testimonies, but they are genuine, and leaves one to suggest identification was
made by assumption.

Spedding 2008-2016
100
There is no information Barnett gave an alibi for the early morning hours of
November 9th; only his alibi for the late hours of November 8th.
No official police investigation has surfaced that could have corroborated Barnetts
sayings on the victims pedigree. With the victim unable to corroborate, we cannot
verify them today. It is however extraordinary that no family member attended the
funeral, even though this particular murder became the sensation of the world.
Barnett must have been coached on at least two sections of his testimony. The first
would be when he gave the time he broke up with the victim on October 30th; the
second would be in regards to identifying the victim. Neither of these coaching
lessons makes him a suspect; they only reveal he was thick and in need of being
directed. The severity lies upon whoever did the directing.
Maria Harvey was the tenth witness to testify at the inquest, because Dr. Phillips
testified before her.
[Police] Statement of Maria Harvey of 3, New Court, Dorset Street -a laundress. 125
I slept two nights with Mary Jane Kelly, Monday and Tuesday last. [November 5th
and 6th.] I then took a room at the above house.
I saw her last about five minutes to seven last night, Thursday [November 8th]
when Barnett called. I then left; they seemed to be on the best of terms.
I left an overcoat [black], two dirty cotton [men] shirts, a boys shirt and a girls white
petticoat and black crape bonnet [with black strings] in the room. The overcoat
shown me by [the] police is the one I left there.
At the inquest, Harvey said she also left a ticket for a shawl for 2/- and that she
had not seen any clothing or item left by her, except for the mans black overcoat
shown to her by the police.
Daily Telegraph
November 13, 1888.
CORONER Have you seen any of these articles since?
HARVEY
Yes; I saw the black overcoat in a room in the Court on Friday

afternoon. [November 9th.]
The clothes the police found in room 13 belonged to Harvey, but she never
explained whose they were. Being a laundress, not much interest would have
125

Spedding 2008-2016
101
been given to this subject (even if the clothes had been stolen) once she had
corroborated the garments were hers and the police excluded them being the
offenders.
Harvey stated she had stayed with the victim for the past two nights prior the
murder. She was also present when Barnett visited on Thursday, November 8th,
between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m. Barnett however, never mentioned her by name; it may
explain why this encounter was given by the press to have taken place in New
Court, just off Dorset Street and not in the victims room at Millers Court.
Evening News
November 10, 1888.
A young woman named Harvey, who had slept with the deceased on several
occasions, has also made a statement. She said she had been on good terms with
the deceased, whose education was much superior to that of most persons in her
position of life. Harvey, however, took a room in New Court, off the same street,
but remained friendly with the unfortunate woman, who visited her in New Court
on Thursday night. [November 8th.] After drinking together, they parted at half past
seven oclock, Kelly going off in the direction of Leman Street, which she was in
the habit of frequenting. She was perfectly sober at the time. Harvey never saw
her alive afterwards.
Inserting this new timeframe into the short one given earlier, we notice some
discrepancies in regards to the area the victim was last seen.
Now, Barnett gave two versions why he left the victim on October 30th. The first
version was given to the police: In consequence of not earning sufficient money to
give her, and her resorting to prostitution, I resolved on leaving her. Pretty straight
forward. The second version was given at the inquest: I left her because she had
a person who was a prostitute whom she took in and I objected to her doing so;
that was the only reason, not because I was out of work.
Barnett was obviously not talking about Harvey, because she told Coroner and Jury
she only slept in Room No. 13 for two nights (November 5th and 6th). Of which
prostitute Barnett was talking of, who was taken in by the victim before October
30th, has never been revealed, though some researchers assume the woman
Barnett saw that night was Julia Venturney.

Spedding 2008-2016
102
Elizabeth Prater
Courtesy of Ripperologist, No. 148 (Feb 2016)
Elizabeth Prater was the fifth witness to be called by the

police and appeared at the inquest in the same order. She
accommodated Room No. 20, which was situated above the
victims room. In the inquest documents, the address is
recorded as 27, Dorset Street.
[Police statement of] Elizabeth Prater, wife of William Prater, a boot machinist of No 20
room 27, Dorset Street states as follows:I went out about 9 p.m. on the 8th [of November] and returned about 1 a.m. [on
the] 9th [of November] and stood at the bottom of Millers Court until about 1:30
[a.m.] I was speaking for a short time to a Mr. McCarthy who keeps a Chandlers
Shop at the corner of the Court. I then went up to bed.
About 3:30 or 4 a.m., I was awakened by a kitten walking across my neck, and just
then I heard screams of murder about two or three times in a female voice. I did
not take much notice of the cries as I frequently hear such cries from the back of
the lodging-house where the windows look into Millers Court. 127
From 1 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. no one passed up the Court; if they did, I should have
seen them. I was up again and down stairs in the Court at 5:30 a.m. but saw no
one except two or three car-men harnessing their horses in Dorset Street.
I went to the Ten Bells P.H. [public house] at the corner of Church Street and had
some rum. I then returned and went to bed again without undressing and slept until
about 11 a.m.
We notice Prater told the police she went out on November 8th at 9:00 p.m. and
returned three hours later to stand outside the dwellings with the landlord until 01:30
a.m. The landlord never mentioned he stood outside his shop with this witness.
It was 03:30 or 04:00 a.m., when Prater said she was woken by screams of murder
about two or three times in a female voice. No mention if she recognized the voice.
Disregarding the scream, she went back to sleep, and by 05:00 a.m. was up,
dressed and leaving at 05:30 a.m. to go to the Ten Bells pub on the corner of
Church Street.
126
127

This would have been Crossinghams lodging-house at 35, Dorset Street.

Spedding 2008-2016
103
Courtesy of Famous Crimes Past & Present
Prater did not corroborate Mary Ann Coxs

presence when the latter had said she returned
around 1 oclock, because from 1 a.m., Prater
said to the police, to 1.30 a.m., no one passed up
the Court; if they did, I should have seen them.
Upon returning to Millers Court, Prater did not say
if she saw any activity or peculiarities going on. She went to bed and next woke up
later in the morning at 11:00 a.m.
The following day, Praters story is printed in the press; it has no mention of hearing
a woman scream murder in the middle of the night, but does mention Prater saw
the victim in the evening on November 8th. This was never mentioned to the police.
Daily Telegraph
November 10, 1888.
She [Prater] had heard nothing during the night, and was out betimes in the
morning, and her attention was not attracted to any circumstances of an unusual
character.
The Star
November 10, 1888.
Elizabeth Prater, a married woman, who has been deserted by her husband, knew
Kelly well, she told a Star reporter, She [deceased] lived in No. 13 room, and mine
is No. 20, which
IS ALMOST OVER HERS.
She was about 23 years old. I have known her since July -since I came to lodge
here. She was tall and pretty, and as fair as a lily. I saw her go out in the shell this
afternoon, but the last time I saw her alive was at about nine oclock on Thursday
night. [November 8th.]
I stood down at the bottom of the entry, and she came down. We both stood talking
a bit, thinking what we were going to do, and then she went one way and I went
another. I went to see if I could see anybody.
Mrs. Prater adds with frankness, She had got her hat and jacket on, but I had not.
I havent got a hat or a jacket. We stood talking a bit about what we were going to
do, and then I said, Good night, old dear, and she said Good night, my pretty. She
always called me that. That, was the last I saw of her.

Spedding 2008-2016
104
Then Mrs. Prater breaks down, and commences to sob violently. Im a woman
myself, she says, and Ive got to sleep in that place to-night right over where it
happened. Mrs. Prater saw the dead and mutilated body through the window of
Kellys room, which it is to be remembered was on the ground floor.
The [water] pump stands just by there, and Mrs. Prater took advantage of a journey
for some water to peep through the window for which, when the door was broken
open, the curtains were torn down. She says, I could not bear to look at it only for
a second, but I can
NEVER FORGET THE SIGHT
of it if I live to be a hundred.
Who was her man? the reporter asked.
He was a man named Joe Barnett, who worked in Billingsgate-market.
Where had he gone to live?
To Bullers lodging-house, 25, New Street, close by Bishopsgate Police Station.
Prater changes two points in her police statement when she appears at the inquest
two days later. The first is how she changed the screams of murder about two or
three times into hearing it just once.
The second change was that Mary Ann Cox could have [our emphasis] passed
down the Court during the night without her hearing her. She did however still insist
that she didnt hear the victim sing at 23:45 p.m. or at 01:00 a.m.
I went to bed at 01:30 a.m.; I did not hear any singing. I should have heard
anyone if singing in the deceaseds room at 01:00 a.m.; there was no one
singing.
Neither did McCarthy state at the inquest that he heard any singing whilst he kept
Prater company outside Millers Court. A newspaper however reported the landlord
had heard the singing.
November 17, 1888.
The last that he [McCarthy] heard of her was at one oclock on Friday morning,
when she was singing in her room, and appeared to be very happy.
Prater then says she retired to her room after someone she was waiting for did not
turn up, and she was up and about by 05:00 a.m., got dressed and left at 05:30
a.m. for the Ten Bells pub; she arrived there at 05:45 a.m.

Spedding 2008-2016
105
If remembered, Prater told reporters on November 10th, she had seen the victims
remains through the window. So notice what she tells another reporter just four
days later:
Bournemouth Visitors Directory
November 14, 1888.
Perhaps the most sensational bit of evidence tendered was that of a garrulous
young woman who, with some dramatic force, imitated by voice and action a sort
of nightmare cry of Oh! murder! which she declared she had heard just after she
had been woke up by her kitten rubbing its nose against her face about half-past
three or four oclock on the morning of the murder. It was a faintish cry, she said,
as though somebody had woke up with the nightmare, and though the evidence
must be taken with the reserve that should attach to all such testimony, the time at
which she believes she heard the cry would tally very well with all the
circumstances of the case, and it is not impossible that that really was the death
gasp of the poor woman in the clutches of her murderer.
If the above press report was correct, then the nightmare cry of Oh! murder! could
not have been the death gasp of the victim, because the estimated time of death
was between 1 and 2 oclock in the morning; D.C. Dew estimated death occurred
between midnight and 2 oclock in the morning.
There are differences of opinion as to the actual time of the Marie Kelly murder,
but I have always inclined to the view that it took place somewhere between
midnight and 2 a.m.
Dew (1938)
Who did Prater hear calling out in a faintish cry (if not the victim) remains
speculative. Some theorize the scream was from somebody who first found the
body; others theorize the scream came from the victim disregarding estimated time
of death. No one however has doubted a scream was heard and this is logical.
The Star
November 10, 1888.
The desire to be interesting has had its effect on the people who live in the Dorset
Street Court and lodging-houses, and for whoever cares to listen there are a
hundred highly circumstantial stories, which, when carefully sifted, prove to be
totally devoid of truth. One woman (as reported below) who lives in the Court [no
name given] stated that at about two oclock she heard a cry of Murder. This story
soon became popular, until at last half a dozen women were retailing it as their
own personal experience. Each story contradicted the others with respect to the
time at which the cry was heard. A Star reporter who inquired into the matter

Spedding 2008-2016
106
extracted from one of the women the confession that the story was, as far as she
was concerned, a fabrication; and he came to the conclusion that it was to be
disregarded.
Some changes in Praters testimony can be noticed.

Change #1: In Praters police statement (November 9th) there is no reference to
when she last saw the victim alive, but stated she went out the previous night
(November 8th) at 9:00 p.m. and returned at 01:00 a.m. The following day, Prater
changed her story; here is what she told the press:
The Star
November 10, 1888.
Elizabeth Prater: . . .the last time I saw her [the victim] alive was at about nine
oclock on Thursday night. I stood down at the bottom of the entry, and she came
down. We both stood talking a bit, thinking what we were going to do, and then
she went one way and I went another.
We cannot think of an excuse, which would explain why she did not mention seeing
the victim that evening or why the police would not have asked her if she saw the
victim before the murder.
When appearing before Coroner and Jury, Prater once again changed her story;
and, she changed the time she went out that night.
Daily Telegraph
November 13, 1888.
I left the room on the Thursday at five p.m., and returned to it at about one a.m. on
Friday morning. I stood at the corner until about twenty minutes past one. No one
spoke to me.
To the police
To the press
To Coroner & Jury
Thursday, Nov. 8
Thursday, Nov. 8
Thursday, Nov. 8
Went out at 9 p.m.
Went out at 9 p.m.
Went out at 5 p.m.
Returned at 1 a.m.
Returned at 1 a.m.
Returned at 1 a.m.
No mention seeing victim
Saw the victim
No mention seeing victim
A possibility -regarding these time changes- may be that Prater would have been
asked by Coroner or Jury if she bumped into Barnett, Albrook, Venturney or Harvey
at 9 p.m. being she was initially known to have been in Millers Court till 9 p.m. If
she or someone else asked her to change her timeframe cannot be certified today.

Spedding 2008-2016
107
Change #2 In Praters police statement, she stated from 1 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. no
one passed up the Court; if they did, I should have seen them. In other words,
Prater did not corroborate Coxs presence in Millers Court at 01:00 a.m. Two days
later, at the inquest, Prater now states that she may have seen Cox who could
have passed down the Court during the night without Prater hearing her.
Change #3 Prater told the authorities that she heard a woman scream murder in
the middle of the night; yet, the following day, this scream is entirely forgotten.
Daily Telegraph
November 10, 1888.
She [Prater] had heard nothing during the night, and was out betimes in the
morning, and her attention was not attracted to any circumstances of an unusual
character.
The screams reappeared two days later at the inquest, but the screams of murder
about two or three times turned into just one scream. It is certain that Elizabeth
Prater was not a reliable witness at the time.
November 8th
8-9 p.m.
victim is alive (Barnett, Harvey, Albrook (Prater?))
9-11 p.m.
victim eats (Medical evidence)
10-11 p.m.
victim seen in the Horn of Plenty pub (unsubstantiated)
11 p.m.
victim seen in the Britannia pub (unsubstantiated)
11.45 p.m.
victim seen enter Room 13 with a client (Cox/unsubstantiated)
November 9th
1 a.m. victim singing (Cox/unsubstantiated) If Coxs memory was correct, then the
victim must have been killed when Cox herself left at one minute past one oclock.
1.05 a.m. victim is attacked (Medical evidence)

1.00-2.00 a.m. victim dies (Medical evidence)
2.00 a.m. mutilation complete (Medical evidence)
The above timeframe is supported by the medical evidence (in red), which was
placed into the public domain on the Millers Court murder. Any other explanation
is not derived from this medical evidence.
By 02:00 a.m., when mutilation was complete, the escape of the offender was set
in motion. Who could have seen the exit of the offender from Millers Court at this
time is an important question to be answered further down in our work.

Spedding 2008-2016
108
4. 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 womans 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.
Dr. Bond must have erred with the Chapman case, because a witness called James
Kent had noticed Chapmans hands were raised and bent, with the palms towards
the upper portion of her body, as though she had fought for her throat. 128
As to Stride, she was found with her hand clenched, which would mean rigor had
set in immediately and muscles remained locked with rigor. This tells forensic
experts that she struggled before death.
5. 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.
It is unclear what Dr. Bond meant by stating the previous four canonical victims
were attacked from the right side, because Nichols and Chapman were attacked
from the front and the approach on Stride was inconclusive. Dr. Bond must have
been talking of where the offender was when the weapon was used. As to the
Millers Court victim, Dr. Bond suggested two approaches.
128
James Kents Deposition (September 12, 1888): HO 144/221, A49301C, f.13.

Spedding 2008-2016
109
Today, it is exceptionally difficult to discuss this subject -reasons multiple- but a

question should be raised: Why did Dr. Bond project just two approaches, since the
bed the victims remains were found on had four sides?
An obvious answer would be that the double bed only had two openings: From the
left, where a small table was, and from the front, which would need the offender
situated on the bed. Yet, in order to get onto the bed, the offender would have
needed to approach the bed from the left. So theoretically, Dr. Bond suggested only
one approach.
The remaining sides of the bed -at the height of the bedstead and the right side
where the bed rested 11 inches away from a wooden wall partition- were never
considered as a possible approach. Neither was the room in general considered.
This was only because of blood splashes seen on the wooden wall, which
however was contradicted by the subject of the sheet over the victims face. We will
go into a reconstruction of the attack in the Autopsy Report section.
6. 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.
Two sightings of blood on the floor were mentioned: One under the bed at the height
of the bedstead, which Dr. Phillips saw and referred to by Dr. Bond, and the other
pool of blood was visible from the window outside the room from the Court area, as
Bowyer looked in: I saw a body of someone laid on the bed, and blood on the floor.
We have no information if this blood was stepped in when the police entered the
room; neither is there information if it had been photographed. D.C. Dew mentioned

Spedding 2008-2016
110
slipping on some awfulness that was on the floor when he entered the room, but
it is unknown if this was body parts or blood. The wooden floorboards would have
had blood traces as the attacker mounted on and off the bed. But should the
authorities have observed this, not even the newspapers reported it.
The Star
November 12, 1888.
The walls were papered, but the pattern could hardly be traced for the dirt, which
covered it, and the floorboards were bare and filthy.
For internal organs and flesh to be placed on tables, chairs and thrown on the floor
as Inspector Moore remembered, the attacker had to have been moving on and off
the bed. He would have been saturated with blood, especially on the knees, shoes,
hands and face.
Pall Mall Gazette
November 4, 1889.
This was about the worst of the murders, said the inspector when they reached
Dorset Street. He cut the skeleton so clean of flesh that when I got here I could
hardly tell whether it was a man or a woman. He hung the different parts of the
body on nails and over the backs of chairs.
Within the outside area of Room No. 13, and opposite where the two windows were
situated, a water-tap was located; it was the only water supply for the Millers Court
residents. The location of this tap was very handy being in a very close location to
the crime scene for a wash. It was raining all through the night and the morning
continued with a drizzle, which would have washed away any rinsed traces of blood.
As to bloody clothes, an external garment such as a jacket or overcoat would have
covered these, if clean clothes were not available to change into. The hands could
easily have been covered by gloves.
7. The mutilations in each case except in the Berners Street one, [Stride,] were all
of the same character and showed clearly that in all the murders, the object was mutilation.
Dr. Bond did not give a motive for his conclusion. In earlier ripper cases, Coroner
Baxter and Dr. Phillips had sparked a motive for the rippers need to mutilate: To
gain certain internal organs. The medical community itself however swiftly
suppressed this. The use of posing and mutilation, Keppel noted, who was an

Spedding 2008-2016
111
American detective and law enforcement officer, 129 were also examples of his [the
rippers] control over the victims, leaving them on display in sexually degrading
positions with the wounds exposed (Keppel 2005).
130
Mutilating the corpse also
distinguishes disguising cause of death.

8. 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
of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.
It is evident Dr. Bond was supporting and protecting his own medical community,
regardless if the killer had medical knowledge or not. The surgeons statement of
exonerating a person or persons from his profession showed favouritism. We
covered this subject earlier so will not add anything more on it, except that the
medical officers intense anger and frustration is quite evident in paragraph 8.
9. 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 butchers
knife or a surgeons knife. I think it was no doubt a straight knife.
In the Victorian era, a post-mortem examination was done with a certain instrument
that Dr. Mann describes: A long thin-bladed knife, about one inch broad and ten or
twelve inches long, for making complete sections through the various viscera. This
is especially useful for cutting into the brain, but one rather shorter, though of similar
make, is frequently used for cutting into the other organs (Mann 1893). 131
10. 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.
At least two individuals familiar with the case believed the ripper had an accomplice:
Matthews (Secretary of State to the Home Office) and D.C. Dew.
He must, in my opinion, be a man subject to periodical attacks of homicidal and
erotic mania. The character of the mutilations indicate that the man may be in a condition
sexually, that may be called satyriasis. [Excessive sexual drive.]
129
132
Wikipedia contributors. Robert D. Keppel. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 6 Apr.
2016. Web. 2016.
130
Keppel, et al. The Jack the Ripper Murders: A Modus Operandi and Signature Analysis of the 1888-1891. Whitechapel
Murders. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. J. Investig. Psych. Offender Profil. 2: 1-21, 2005. Web.
Interscience. Web. 2015. <http://www.interscience.wiley.com>
131
Mann, John D. Forensic Medicine & Toxicology. London: Charles Griffin & Co., Ltd., 1893. Print.
132
Keppel, et al. (2005): The main components of Jack the Rippers signature include the control of the victim and
progressive picquerism. Picquerism is deriving sexual pleasure through stabbing, cutting, or slicing another person or by
observing these actions.

Spedding 2008-2016
112
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 hypotheses 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.
This offender does not look out of the ordinary. However, the clothing he wears at
the time of the assaults is not his everyday dress. He wants to project to
unsuspecting females (prostitutes) that he has money; consequently, this relieves
him from initiating contact.
(FBI 1988)
People wore gloves in those days that would cover blooded hands. Many streets in
the area bustled with animal slaughterers who left for work and returned home or
diverted to a pub without changing out of bloody aprons and/or work clothes. It
seems doubtful Dr. Bond knew the mannerism of the working class area of the East
End of London.
11. 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.

Spedding 2008-2016
113
Autopsy Report (jointly written?) by Drs. Bond and Phillips

Written: November 10, 1888.
Received by the Home Office: November 14, 1888.
Received by Whitechapel Police (H-Division): November 16, 1888.
. . .posing a body can be utilised as an element of staging.

Claire Ferguson (2010)
Image courtesy of Stewart P. Evans | Referenced by Spiro Dimolianis 133
Scotland Yard
Crime index reference number 93305
Special H-Division [Whitechapel]
16 Nov. 1888.
Dr. Thom. Bond
7, Broad Sanctuary S.W.
Whitechapel Murders.
Result of Post Mortem examination of body of woman
found in Dorset St.
Mr. Anderson seen & noted.
POSITION OF THE BODY

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
and lying across the abdomen.
A newspaper article reported the victims left hand had been thrust inside the
empty cavity of the abdomen (Bournemouth Visitors Directory Nov. 14. 1888).
133
Dimolianis, Spiro. Jack the Ripper and Black Magic: Victorian Conspiracy Theories, Secret Societies and the Supernatural
Mystique of the Whitechapel Murders. McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2011. Print.

Spedding 2008-2016
114
The right arm [not visible in any crime scene photograph] was slightly abducted
from the body and rested on the mattress; the elbow bent and the forearm supine
with the fingers clenched.
The victims hand found clenched with several abrasions on the back of it, tells
forensic experts that the Millers Court victim struggled before her death: Cadaveric
spasm is a somewhat controversial entity that describes immediate rigor mortis that
typically involves one group of voluntary muscles involved in a final desperate act
associated with intense physical effort or extreme psychological stress (Cox 2009).
New Zealand Herald | April 19, 1910.
A similarity can be observed with Elizabeth Stride. Her

left hand was also found clenched, and still holding
onto a packet of cachous.
Edward Spooner (witness) testified to seeing a piece
of paper doubled up in Strides right hand, and the
medical officer on the case, again Dr. Phillips, had
found one or two small pieces of paper in an under
pocket of her skirt.
These pieces of paper were not described as being
found by Inspector Reid when he testified on October
5th. He just found two handkerchiefs, a thimble, and a
piece of wool on a card.
A newspaper article (see above) reported that Jack the Ripper was scribbled on
pieces of paper attached to the victims clothes (New Zealand Herald, April 19.
1910); there is no official mention of this in any police report of the time. It was not
unusual however for details to be kept from being released, as happened in the

Spedding 2008-2016
115
Nichols case: ...two small stabs on private parts, apparently done with a strong
bladed knife (Inspector Spratling). 134
Should what was found in Strides right hand and under pocket have actually been
scraps of paper that had Jack the Ripper scribbled on them, or if the victim of
Millers Court was also holding something between her clutched fingers, cannot be
ascertained today.
The legs were wide apart, the left thigh at right angles to the trunk, and the
right forming an obtuse angle with the pubes.
The whole of the surface of the abdomen and thighs was removed and the
abdominal cavity emptied of its viscera.
The breasts were cut off, the arms mutilated by several jagged wounds, and
the face hacked beyond recognition of the features. The tissues of the neck were
severed all round down to the bone.
What possible reason could the attacker have had to remove the surface of the
thighs has never been explained; it is however an extraordinary procedure, not
only to accomplish, but also to consider. Postmortem torture or removal of scars
and/or tattoos comes to mind. In addition, the face being hacked is very specific,
and goes beyond cutting and scarring; it leans towards destruction as opposed to
concealing an identity.
Dr. Brown in the Eddowes case -the only other ripper victim who suffered face
disfiguration- gave his medical opinion that Eddowes face had been disfigured
merely for the sake of concealing the identity of the woman (Daily News, Oct. 5.
1888). He never gave a reason why the offender would have wanted to conceal
the victims identity.
Regarding the tissues around the Millers Court victims neck to have been
severed all down to the bone, suggested partial decapitation.
The viscera were found in various parts viz; the uterus and 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 and 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, and on the floor beneath was a pool of blood
covering about 2 feet square.
134
Inspector Spratlings Police Report (August 31, 1888): MEPO 3/140, ff. 239-41.

Spedding 2008-2016
116
This pool of blood (2 feet square) mentioned by Dr. Bond was the same pool of
blood Dr. Phillips described; both saw it at the height of the bedstead where the
bed clothing was saturated with blood.
The wall by the right side of the bed and in a line with the neck was marked
by blood which had struck it in a number of separate splashes.
Police News | November 17, 1888.
The bed must have been moved either

by the doctors or by the authorities,
because moving it would have facilitated
not only the onsite examination of the
corpse (as depicted in the above sketch), but also the calculation of blood (2 feet
square) under the bed.
POSTMORTEM EXAMINATION
The face was gashed in all directions; the nose, cheeks, eyebrows and ears
being partly removed. The lips were blanched [obstruction of blood flow] and cut
by several oblique incisions running obliquely down to the chin. There were also
numerous cuts extending irregularly across all the features.
If the eyebrows and eyelids had been cut as Hamilton and Godkin (1894) stated,
then a question rises as to the purpose. The only logical answer would have been
that the offender was superstitious, and so cut off the victims eyelids where coins
would have been placed over her closed eyes to pay the Ferryman (Charon) to
reach life after death. We see no other purpose for this act.
Jewish belief: In Judea, a pair of silver denarii were found in the eye sockets of a
skull; the burial dated to the 2nd century A.D. occurs within a Jewish community,
but the religious affiliation of the deceased is unclear. Jewish ritual in antiquity did
not require that the eye be sealed by an object, and it is debatable whether the
custom of placing coins on the eyes of the dead was practiced among Jews prior
to the modern era. 135
Ancient Greek belief: The River Styx had to be crossed to reach life after death
and the only way to cross the River Styx was in a ferryboat rowed by a terrible old
135
Wikipedia contributors. Charon's obol. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 15 Mar.
2016. Web. May. 2016.

Spedding 2008-2016
117
boatman named Charon. The boatman would only take a soul if their bodies had
received the funereal rites on earth. Charon also demanded to be paid. 136
--Eyes untouched (Marion Daily Star, Nov. 12. 1888)

--Eyebrows and eyelids cut off (Hamilton and Godkin 1894)
--Both ears and nose cut off (Illustrated Police News, Nov. 17. 1888)
--Cheeks & forehead peeled off (Bournemouth Visitors Directory, Nov. 14. 1888)
--Lips and chin cut off (Hamilton and Godkin 1894)
--Face gashed in all directions (Autopsy Report, 1888)
The neck was cut through the skin and

other tissues right down to the vertebrae
the 5th and 6th being deeply notched.
The skin cuts in the front of the neck
showed distinct ecchymosis.
Bruising (ecchymosis) will not occur after

the heart stops. The victim was still alive
when she received the skin cuts to the throat.
136
Alchin, L.K. Web. Tales beyond belief. June 19, 2014. Web. May 2016. <www.talesbeyondbelief.com>

Spedding 2008-2016
118
The air passage was cut at the lower part of the larynx
through the cricoid cartilage.
The function of the cricoid cartilage is to provide

attachments for various muscles and ligaments
involved in opening and closing the airway and in
speech production. Should a layman know where to cut
into the cricoid cartilage closing the airway and eliminating speech, would be an
interesting medical debate.
Each breast lies over a muscle of the chest called the pectoral muscle. The female
breast covers a fairly large area extending from just below the collarbone
(clavicle), to the armpit (axilla) and across to the breastbone (sternum). 137
On opening the trunk, a large scalpel is taken to make an incision in the trunk. The
arms of the Y extend from the front of each shoulder to the bottom end of the breast
bone (called the xiphoid process of the sternum). In women, these incisions are
diverted beneath the breasts, so the Y has curved, rather than straight, arms
(Uthman 1996). 138
The intercostals [muscles that help to facilitate breathing] between the 4th, 5th
and 6th ribs were cut through and the contents of the thorax visible through the
openings.
The offender must have gained access to the pericardium and heart through the
4th, 5th and 6th ribs that were cut through.
137
Anatomy and Physiology of the Breast. Web. Canadian Cancer Society. Web. 2015. <http://www.cancer.ca/>
Uthman, Ed. The Routine Autopsy: The Procedure Related in Narrative Form. A Guide for Screenwriters and Novelists.
American Board of Pathology, Version 1.003. August 1996. Print.
138

Spedding 2008-2016
119
The skin and 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 and part of the right buttock.
For a portion of the right buttock to be cut, the body was either placed into a prone
position or held onto its side; otherwise, it was cut whilst the victim was still standing.
The left thigh was stripped of skin, fascia and muscles as far as the knee. The
left calf showed a long gash through skin and tissues to the deep muscles and
reaching from the knee to 5 inches above the ankle.
The medical report makes no mention if

this wound nicked the calcaneal tendon
(Achilles tendon) since the left calfs gash
stopped 5 inches above the ankle, and
would have restricted the victims gait.
Apart from being a strong and thick
tendon, the Achilles tendon connects the
calf to our heel bone and is able to
withhold a stress of about four times a
persons body weight when walking and its narrowest part (above its insertion) is
four centimeters [1.6 inches] thick (Health line).
139
The Autopsy Report does not
specify when this gash to the calf was inflicted.
Both arms and forearms had extensive and jagged

wounds.
No detailed description in regards to the extensive

jagged wounds on both the victims arms and forearms. For instance, we do not
know if these patterned wounds extended to the back of the upper limbs. What is
visible (image above) depicts the front side of one upper limb. When a wound is
apposed and not swollen, as seen in the cropped MJK1 photograph, it tells
139
Calcaneal tendon. Web. Healthline. Web. 2016. <http://www.healthline.com/>

Spedding 2008-2016
120
forensic experts that these wounds were inflicted postmortem. No medical opinion
reported as to their purpose.
The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 inch long, with
extravasation of blood in the skin and 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 and torn
away.
The left lung was intact; it was adherent at the apex and there were a few
adhesions over the side. In the substaces of the lung were several nodules of
consolidation.
The Pericardium was open below and the heart absent.
In the abdominal cavity was some partially digested food of fish and potatoes
and similar food was found in the remains of the stomach attached to the
intestines.
The victims hair was not mentioned, though it is important to study. An interesting
mention to the subject comes from Dr. Gabe.
QuAppelle Progress
November 16, 1888.
The victims hair was flung upwards on a pillow and matted with gore, as if the
murderer had wiped his hands and threaded his tell-tale fingers.
The most likely Dr. Gabe saw was clotted blood in the victims hair, which occurred
from some antemortem injury to the victims head.
Some other medical evidence not mentioned is what can be seen in the crime
scene photograph (MJK3). The right leg shows extensive circular burns or
branded wounds; they are crystal clear, even though these wounds have been
partially obscured by scratches on the photograph. The wounds are apposed, which
tells us they were inflicted postmortem.
Dr. Bond did not mention these particular burns or branded wounds; it cannot be
that he misjudged them for something else or that he forgot to mention them. The
most likely to have happened is that the good doctor was instructed to leave out
this medical evidence -hence the scratches on the photograph obscuring the

Spedding 2008-2016
121
wounds. As to why anyone (authoritative or not) would scratch out evidence from a
photograph pertaining to a homicide, is beyond the scope of this work. The
photograph has an interesting pedigree, and can be found in the footnote link. 140
140
Evans, Stewart P. Dissertation: The Kelly Crime Scene Photographs. Web. Casebook. Web. 2010.
<http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-kelly.html?printer=true>

Spedding 2008-2016
122
Reconstructing the crime

The dead talk -to the right listener.
Val McDermid 141
Taking from Thomas Bonds Profile Report and the Autopsy Report he jointly
wrote(?) with Bagster Phillips, a raw reconstruction of the attack can be made. The
only reservation that may be mentioned, is that though these reports were
considered at the time conclusive for the authorities, in as much as to hang a
suspect if caught and charged for the Millers Court crime, with todays knowledge
of forensic medicine, neither report could have convicted a suspect.
Approach for the kill
We cannot see (from the given evidence) that the victim was attacked whilst on the
bed as many researchers suggest. Narrowing ones thoughts to the bed, just
because the sheet found saturated with blood was found in the top right-hand
corner, will not assist in the reconstruction of the attack.
The victim must have been approached for the kill whilst she was standing
somewhere in the room. The sheet was looped around her throat as the offender
stood behind her, and so strangulation commenced. This approach explains the
cuts on the victims buttocks and calf. More on these injuries further down.
Once the sheet was around the throat, the victim was lifted or dragged, then thrown
onto the bed. This action had her head bang against the wall and yielded the head
injury where Dr. Gabe noticed clotted blood in the hair.
QuAppelle Progress
November 16, 1888.
The victims hair was flung upwards on a pillow and matted with gore, as if the
murderer had wiped his hands and threaded his tell-tale fingers.
Still against the wall, the offenders body weight now trapped her legs with her left
arm immobilized since no self-defending injuries were reported on the left hand.
With the sheet still around the victims throat, the lack of blood circulation to the
face created the blanched lips.
141
McDermid, Val. Forensics: What bugs, burns, prints, DNA, and more tell us about crime. Web. 2016.

Spedding 2008-2016
123
Strangulation is an ultimate
form of power and control,
where
the
batterer
can
demonstrate control over the

victims next breath; having
devastating
psychological
effects or a potentially fatal outcome.

Sober and conscious victims of strangulation will first feel terror
and severe pain. If strangulation persists, unconsciousness will
follow. Before lapsing into unconsciousness, a strangulation
victim will usually resist violently, often producing injuries of
their own neck in an effort to claw off the assailant, and
frequently also producing injury on the face or hands of their
assailant. These defensive injuries may not be present if the victim is physically or
chemically restrained before the assault.
Victims may lose consciousness by any one or all of the following methods: blocking of
the carotid arteries in the neck (depriving the brain of oxygen), blocking of the jugular
veins (preventing deoxygenated blood from exiting the brain), and closing off the airway,
making breathing impossible. Very little pressure on both the carotid arteries and/or veins
for ten seconds is necessary to cause unconsciousness. However, if the pressure is
immediately released, consciousness will be regained within ten seconds. To completely
close off the trachea (windpipe), three times as much pressure (33 lbs.) is required. Brain
death will occur in 4 to 5 minutes, if strangulation persists.
Victims of strangulation show signs of urination and defecation. George McClane
(Emergency-room physician) notes: Urination and defecation are physical functions, like
sweating and digestion, that happen below our consciousness, and are controlled by the
autonomic nervous system. Sacral nerves in the brain stem -the final part of the brain to
expire- control the sphincter muscles.
***
The victim, still conscious and now in shock, tried to defend herself against the
attacker with her free right hand creating the defensive wounds: The right thumb
showed a small superficial incision about 1 inch long, with extravasation of blood in
the skin and there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover
showing the same condition.

Spedding 2008-2016
124
Attack to the face

The offender covers the victims face with the remaining fabric from the sheet -. .
.the face may have been covered with the sheet at the time of the attack- and the
random stabs and slashes across the features begin. The stifling effect of the sheet
over the face and around the throat diminishes any possibility of a scream.
Attack to the throat
The knife takes to the throat; it forcibly slits from right to left severing the right carotid
artery. Both victim and offender are still against the wall, because the throat could
not have been cut less than eleven inches from the wall, as arterial blood ejects six
inches vertically and 18 inches laterally (Arnold 1933). The gap between bed and
wall was calculated at 11 inches.
The victims body immediately reacts to the loss of blood, and shes pushed back
onto the bed with her head landing in the top right hand corner where the throat
now oozes an immense volume of blood on that side of the bed. This blood seeps
down creating the pool of blood (2 feet square), which was seen by both surgeons
(Bond and Phillips) on the wooden floorboards at the height of the bedstead.
As the sheet remains over the face for the next 4 to 6 minutes -if the attacker
believed dead eyes could record the last image seen- any under linen garment on
her (Dr. Phillips Deposition 1888), is cut from her body (Dew 1938). No staging
of the body commences yet; this will come towards the end.
Something to consider. Clinical death lasts between 4 to 6 minutes, beginning when
a person stops breathing and the heart stops pumping blood. During this time, there
may be enough oxygen in the brain that no permanent brain damage occurs. Other
organs, such as the kidneys and eyes, also remain alive throughout clinical death.
Based upon this forensic fact, the Victorians believed the eyes (still alive throughout
clinical death for 4 or 6 minutes) could record and render the last image a person
saw before dying.
The New York Times | March 18, 1878.
In April of 1877, the Berlin newspapers were filled with

reports of a particularly gruesome murder. Frau von
Sabatzky, a seventy-two year old widow, had been killed
in her shop by someone who horribly mutilated her body
and then escaped without leaving a clue as to motive or identity. By offering a large

Spedding 2008-2016
125
monetary reward, the police had persuaded bystanders to name many suspects who were
duly arrested and questioned. But the newspapers also noted that an entirely new forensic
technique had been used in the case: To leave no stone unturned, the police
photographed the eye of the body immediately after it was found, for as is known, scientific
authorities claim that the final image seen before death is imprinted on the victims eye.
Despite particularly favorable circumstances, however, the image gave no clues. The
case remained unresolved (Kremer 2008). 142
D.C. Dew wrote in his memoirs how several photographs of the Millers Court
victims eyes were taken by expert photographers with the latest type cameras.
The result was negative (Dew 1938). These photographs have not surfaced into
the public domain.
Because Jack the Ripper was a Victorian man, he would also have had the same
beliefs his fellow countrymen had, and it would explain to a moderate degree how
a sheet may have been thrown over the victims face.
Attack to the thorax
Both breasts are removed first; it will allow access to the thorax area. The right
breast is tossed downward toward the right of the body and the left breast is placed
on the pillow in the middle of the bed. Keep in mind that the body is still inclined
toward the top right corner of the bedstead.
The intercostals (muscles that facilitate breathing) are cut through from the space
between the 4th, 5th and 6th ribs. Being that the left lung was found untouched, it
was the intercostals on the right side that were cut through and it was from this side
where the right lungs lower part was broken and torn away.
There is no mention in any report that the ribcage was damaged; it seems logical
then, that the heart was removed from under the ribcage (Valentine 2016) on the
right side of the thorax.
Attack to the abdomen and female reproductive organs
The abdomen was opened by cutting three large flaps and dumping them on a
table; no mention if it was the small bedside table or the one found under the
window. But something needs to be questioned. Why would the attacker cut the
142
Kremer, Richard L. The Eye as Inscription Device in the 1870s: Optograms, Cameras and the Photochemistry of Vision.
Contributed in Ogbourne, Derek. Encyclopedia of Optography: The Shutter of Death. Muswell Press, 2008. Print.

Spedding 2008-2016
126
skin and tissue of the abdomen in three large flaps as is done in autopsies and
then place these flaps on some table as opposed to flinging them anywhere on the
bed or on the floor?
Since the abdominal area would have been subjected to injury second in line after
the thorax area where the heart was, we believe that once the thorax was cleared
and abdominal flaps cut, the offender took a step back from his work with abdominal
flaps in hand. Whether this action was because he heard something and panicked,
or that he just wanted to admire the body areas he had just accessed, can only be
assumed. Prior returning to the mutilation, the offender subconsciously left the three
abdominal flaps on a table.
The liver is then accessed, removed, and set toward the end of the bed. The
intestines and stomach are just placed to the right side and the spleen to the left
side. These initial placements of internal organs -not staged- produce the attacker
as having been an ambisinistral individual.
As the whole of the surface of the abdomen is progressively removed, the viscera
had no chance of being left untouched, with uterus and both kidneys taking their
position on the pillow in the middle of the bed where the left breast still lay.
Attack to the limbs
We do not believe the body was flipped into a supine position to inflict the injury on
the right buttock -skin was cut through- or inflict the long gash on the left calf. We
believe these injuries were inflicted whilst the victim was still standing.
We explain.
The initial approach for the kill came from behind. As the sheet was looped around
the victims neck, the offender knifed at the right buttock to suppress self-defense;
pain and shock overcame the victim, with panic kicking in almost immediately. The
victims instinct for self-preservation (adrenalin) pumped in enough strength for her
to free herself, momentarily. An attempt for the door or window had the offender
slash at the left calf, which inhibited the victims gait.
What cannot be explained is the urge to inflict the following wounds:
Right thigh stripped of its skin till the femur bone was revealed
Left thigh stripped of skin fascia and muscles as far as the knee

Spedding 2008-2016
127
Both arms and forearms extensive and jagged wounds

Unless the above anatomical areas had tattoos or scars that needed to be removed,
no motive can justify the removal of skin and tissue to the appearance of bone. This
mutilation can be placed outside the norm and without continuance. In other words,
they lean towards staging.
Staging the body for maximum effect
Mutilation over, the body could easily have been left as it was with various internal
organs scattered on the bed. This is especially true if the offender had taken more
than 15 minutes to achieve what he came to do. For some unexplained reason, the
attacker takes the time to place the body in the middle of the bed; the victims head
is placed on the pillow where the uterus, both kidneys and left breast were
previously placed.
The left arm is placed, or as reporters said thrust inside the empty abdominal
cavity. The right arm, which has now set with rigor, is placed to the right side of the
body with fingers clenched. We can only assume if some piece of paper with the
words Jack the Ripper was placed between the clenched fingers. Finally, the legs
are spread wide apart.
The overkill
One medical officer, Dr. Gabe, leaked to the press some elements of the crime
scene, but did not expose the overkill. It was only a year later when Inspector Moore
corroborated elements of the overkill, and also went into some detail: He [the
attacker] hung the different parts of the body on nails and over the backs of chairs
(Pall Mall Gazette, Nov. 4. 1889).
The overkill elements were never mentioned in the Autopsy Report or the Profile
Report. It is only outside these documents the overkill is noticed to exist, which
however contradict the crime. But lets look at these elements so we have a better
understanding of what this overkill entailed.
Keep in mind that the press at the time was restricted from gaining access to the
raw crime scene. They accessed the cleaned up crime scene when they trailed
behind the Jury who were accompanied by Inspector Abberline before witness
testimony began at the murder inquest on November 12th.

Spedding 2008-2016
128
Pall Mall Gazette

November 12, 1888.
The entrance to the Court was held by a couple of policemen, and it was so narrow that
we could pass up in single file. It was only about three yards long, and then we were at the door
which is numbered 13. The two windows which look into the little Court were boarded up, and
had apparently been newly whitewashed. From the windows above a girl looked down upon us
quite composedly, and several pots of beer were brought in during our stay to comfort the
denizens of the Court.
At last the key [a new lock?] was procured, and the room was surveyed in batches. The
inspector, holding a candle stuck in a bottle, stood at the head of the filthy, bloodstained bed, and
repeated the horrible details with appalling minuteness. He indicated with one hand the
bloodstains on the wall, and point[ed] with the other to the pools which had ebbed out on to the
mattress. The little table was still on the left of the bedstead, which occupied the larger portion of
the room. A farthing dip in a bottle did not serve to illuminate the fearful gloom, but I was able to
see what a wretched hole the poor murdered woman called home.
The only attempts at decoration were a couple of engravings, one, The Fishermans
Widow, stuck over the mantelpiece; while in the corner was an open cupboard, containing a few
bits of pottery, some ginger-beer bottles, and a bit of bread on a plate. The rent was 4s. a week.
In twenty minutes the Jury filed out again and marched back, still accompanied by a
curious crowd, to the Town Hall, and began their very simple labours under the direction of Dr.
MacDonald, the member for the Scotch Crofters.
We notice that reporters could not have witnessed, with their own eyes, the overkill
inside the crime scene. This produces a question: Who gave reporters the overkill
details that all newspapers in the land were printing on November 9th up till
November 12th when the murder inquest started?
Consider this very important element.
Regardless if this murder took place inside a room, anyone could have disturbed
the offender; too many variables surrounded the area outside the crime scene,
which could not be controlled. The maximum time needed for this murder to happen
(complete with mutilations recorded in both medical reports) could not have taken
more than 15 minutes. On the other hand, the overkill seen would have needed
additional time -from 30 minutes up to 90 minutes.
And here is where the many questions rise that automatically flips medical evidence
into circumstantial and does not fit the Millers Court crime.

Spedding 2008-2016
129
The Echo
November 9, 1888.
. . .the one arm extended, and the other lying across her breast, which was ripped
open, and the breast cut off. The flesh on her legs was cut down in strips, the
thighs being almost bare to the bone. Her head had been -said one informantsevered from the body. When the police entered the room, it was lying on the floor.
The face was also mutilated beyond recognition, and her ears were cut off. To
increase the horrible picture which the head presented, the lips had -so one story
goes- been cut away. To still further aggravate the demoniacal character of the
deed, the poor creature was not only disemboweled, but the uterus and other parts
were found by the doctors to be missing -just as in the terrible outrages which
preceded it.
Who the informant was that the Echo reporters referred to is unknown. But further
overkill information was also being given to other reporters.
Evening News
November 9, 1888.
Consequently the details of the crime are difficult to obtain, but inquiry in the
neighbourhood elicited the information that the victims head was nearly, or quite
severed from the body, and that, as in the other terrible cases, the abdomen was
ripped open.
The Star
November 9, 1888.
The thick flesh has been literally stripped from the thighs of the victim, and placed
upon the table in the room. The womans breasts have also been roughly sliced
off. The fleshy parts of the cheeks have also been hacked away, and the corpse
presents a spectacle more hideous than anything, which has presented itself to
even the oldest and most experienced of the police officers who are engaged in
the case.
We may conclude that apart from neighbourhood chatterboxes, who threw into their
stories the various wounds that were not mentioned in the Autopsy Report, we see
that informants apparently leaked the overkill in the room on the very day the
crime was first discovered. Who these people were is open for assumption; but at
least two individuals must have been the landlord and the rent-collector for some
tinkling coins in return. Motive is rarely unselfish.

Spedding 2008-2016
130
V
A coroners court is convened to investigate the death of a person or persons and
to establish how death occurred. The jury is made up of members of the public and
presided over by the coroner, who is appointed by the reigning monarch. He (or
she) is either a doctor or other medical person, in either case with great experience.
He acts exactly as a judge does in a crown court. The only difference is that, unlike
in a crown court, the normal rules of evidence do not apply and instead hearsay
evidence and evidence of opinion are admissible.
Trevor Marriott (2007) 143
The Millers Court murder inquest was held on Monday, November 12th. It
convened in a small but well-ventilated and well-furnished room on the ground
floor. With the accommodation so limited, the Coroners Officer [Mr. Hammond] had
to be careful to prevent overcrowding. He was at first satisfied with holding the door
shut, but as the crush outside threatened to overmaster his strength he locked the
door, and stationed an Inspector on duty there. Inquiries went round as to why a
larger room was not requisitioned, and it then transpired that the Council Chamber
could not be used, because it was being repaired. At length those with business at
the inquest were all accommodated, but by that time the place was literally packed
(The Star, Nov. 12. 1888).
Accompanied by a few pressmen (Pall Mall Gazette, Nov. 12. 1888), Inspector
Abberline led the Jury to the Mortuary located in a graveyard back of gloomy old
Houndsditch Church (Evening Gazette, Nov. 10. 1888.).
Pall Mall Gazette
November 12, 1888.
The little rusty iron wicket guarded by a policeman, who held it open as we passed
into the melancholy churchyard, with an acre of grey, soot-covered gravestones,
and sorrowful grass and weeds. The path ran alongside the church, and as we
turned sharp round to the left there was a little brick mortuary, a red oasis in the
desert of tombstones and soft, dank soil. The door was open, and disclosed a cool
and lofty apartment, lighted by a couple of windows placed high up, which shed a
good light on the fearful spectacle upon which we all gazed.
The body need not actually be stripped for the view, although in some cases this
is necessary to look for marks of violence. If possible, especially in criminal cases,
143
Marriott, Trevor. Jack the Ripper: The 21st Century Investigation. London: John Blake Publishing Ltd., 2007. Print.

Spedding 2008-2016
131
some person who can identify the body should always accompany the Jury to the
place where the body lies (Melsheimer 1888).
144
If an acquaintance of the victim
accompanied Inspector Abberline, Jury, and reporters -for identification purposesthis has not been recorded.
Anatomical specimens in surgical shops (Early 19th Century)
Pall Mall Gazette

November 12, 1888.
There, in a coarse wooden shell lay the body the rippers latest victim. 145
Only her face was visible: The hideous and disemboweled trunk was
concealed by the dirty grey cloth, which had probably served to cover
many a corpse. The face resembled one of those horrible was [sic]
anatomical specimens which may be seen in surgical shops. The eyes
were the only vestiges of humanity, 146 the rest was so scored and slashed
that it was impossible to say where the flesh began and the cuts ended.
147
And yet it was no
means a horrible sight. I have seen bodies in the Paris Morgue, which looked far more repulsive.
From the Mortuary, the Jury was then taken to the scene of the crime in order they
might acquaint themselves with the appearance of the room. Reporters tagged
along. With Jury back at Shoreditch Town Hall, it was not until noon when evidence
was finally taken.
Outside the courtroom, half a dozen wretched-looking women
148
were sitting on
half a dozen cane chairs waiting to be called; and for half an hour the gentlemen of
the Jury dropped one by one into the green-walled square little room which is
sacred to the Coroner. A mahogany table, drawn up against the windows, was
laden with hats, black bags and papers, belonging to the army of reporters. The
Jury, twelve very respectable-looking men, sat on the Coroners right on two rows
of chairs (Pall Mall Gazette, Nov. 12. 1888).
The murder inquest produced the Jury with a grievance, and the Coroner did not
apparently feel in a compromising mood (The Star, Nov. 12. 1888).
144
Melsheimer, Rudolph E. Coroners Act, 1887: Office & Duties of Coroners. W. Maxwell & Son, Temple Bar, 1888. Print.
A note should be made. Two days after the murder, there was no doubt (at least from the press) that the Millers Court
murder had been committed by Jack the Ripper.
146
That the eyelids had been cut off (Hamilton and Godkin 1894) may be corroborated by this reporters description of how
he saw the eyes as the only vestiges of humanity, which dictates he saw them open and not closed.
147
Even so, at least two witnesses (McCarthy and Barnett) said they identified the mutilated corpse.
148
Cox, Prater, Maxwell, Lewis, Venturney and Harvey.
145

Spedding 2008-2016
132
Daily Telegraph
November 13, 1888.
The Jury, having answered to their names, one of them said: I do not see why
we should have the inquest thrown upon our shoulders, when the murder did not
happen in our district, but in Whitechapel.
The Coroners Officer (Mr. Hammond): It did not happen in Whitechapel.
The Coroner (to the Juror, severely): Do you think that we do not know what
we are doing here, and that we do not know our own district? The jury are
summoned in the ordinary way, and they have no business to object. If they persist
in their objection I shall know how to deal with them. Does any juror persist in
objecting?
The Juror: We are summoned for the Shoreditch district. This affair happened in
Spitalfields.
The Coroner: It happened within my district.
Another Juryman: This is not my district. I come from Whitechapel, and Mr.
Baxter is my Coroner.
The Coroner: I am not going to discuss the subject with jurymen at all. If any
juryman says he distinctly objects, let him say so. (After a pause) I may tell the
jurymen that jurisdiction lies where the body lies, not where it was found, if there
was doubt as to the district where the body was found.
What happened was explained by the press at the time:

The Star
November 10, 1888.
The removal of Kellys body to the Shoreditch mortuary is likely to lead to some
complications through the intersection of the local boundaries and the jurisdiction of the
two coroners for the newly-formed divisions of Eastern Middlesex. Spitalfields, although
within the Whitechapel district for all local purposes, is within the North Eastern Division
of Middlesex, and is therefore under the jurisdiction of Dr. Macdonald.
All the other portions of Whitechapel remain under the jurisdiction of Mr. Baxter,
so far as coroners inquests are concerned. The Hanbury Street murder, [Chapman,]
which occurred in Spitalfields, took place in the open air, and it being incumbent on the
police to remove the body, they naturally conveyed it to the local mortuary in Old
Montague Street.
But in the Dorset Street case, [Kellys case,] there was no duty cast upon the police
to remove the body from the house where it was found, and the coroners officer for the
district being communicated with, he was obliged to take it where he could. If he had
taken it to Old Montague Street, it would have gone from his control, so he took it to
Shoreditch, which is within his district. It remains to be seen whether the Shoreditch
Vestry will be content to afford mortuary accommodation in such instances of a
neighbouring district not within their parish, to oblige the coroner or his officer, but it is

Spedding 2008-2016
133
pretty certain when it comes to a question of parochial burial, the relieving officer will be
found in a difficulty as to whether he is justified in incurring the expense for the Shoreditch
ratepayers.
This difficulty may be got over by removing the body back again to Whitechapel,
and placing it in the Old Montague Street mortuary, so as to throw the cost of the burial
upon the Whitechapel Board of Guardians. Here again another difficulty arises, because
the body will come into Mr. Baxters district, who, according to the state of the Coroners
Quest Law, will be obliged to hold another inquest, if only a formal one.
Coroner MacDonald (Scottish physician and Member of Parliament)
149
together
with Mr. Hodgkinson (Deputy Coroner) summoned the following witnesses; all
made an appearance:
1. Joseph Barnett (unemployed labourer and former boyfriend of the victim)
2. Thomas Bowyer (rent-collector)
3. John (or Jack) McCarthy (landlord of Millers Court)
4. Mary Ann Cox (prostitute and resident of Millers Court)
5. Elizabeth Prater (neighbour)
6. Caroline Maxwell (neighbour and acquaintance of the victim)
7. Sarah Lewis (laundress)
8. George B. Phillips, Dr. (leading medical officer on the case)
9. Julia Venturney (charwoman and friend of the victim)
10. Maria Harvey (laundress and friend of the victim)
11. Inspector Beck (first responding officer to the crime scene)
12. Inspector Abberline (in charge of the case from Scotland Yard)
149
Dr. Roderick Macdonald. Web. Hansard Millbank Systems, 1803-2005. Web. 2010.

Spedding 2008-2016
134
Coming down to the police statements and inquest testimonies, the nine statements
taken by the police on November 9th were from witnesses who testified on the
body of Marie Jeanette Kelly (Evans and Skinner 2000) and would appear at the
murder inquest two days later. We gave some of these testimonies earlier in this
work so will not repeat them here; the remainder of these testimonies follow.
Police statement order
Inquest - Order of appearance
1. Bowyer Thomas
1. Barnett Joseph
2. McCarthy Jack
2. Bowyer Thomas
3. Barnett Joseph
3. McCarthy Jack (or John)
4. Cox Mary Ann
4. Cox Mary Ann
5. Prater Elizabeth
5. Prater Elizabeth
6. Maxwell Caroline
6. Maxwell Caroline
7. Lewis Sarah
7. Lewis Sarah
8. Venturney Julia
8. Phillips George B. (Dr.) no police statement available
9. Harvey Maria
9. Venturney Julia
10. Harvey Maria
11. Beck Inspector no police report available
12. Inspector Abberline no police report available
Caroline Maxwell was the sixth witness the police took a statement from, and in
that order appeared at the inquest. She knew the victim since July. 150
[Police] Statement of Caroline Maxwell, 14, Dorset Street, Spitalfields, the wife of Henry
Maxwell, a lodging-house deputy.
I have known deceased woman during the past 4 [or 5 - deleted] months, she
was known as Mary Jane, and that since Joe Barnett left her she has obtained her
living as an unfortunate.
I was on speaking terms with her although I had not seen her for 3 weeks until
Friday morning 9th [here there is a marginal note: about half past 8 oclock]
instant, she was then standing at the corner of Millers Court in Dorset Street.
I said to her, what brings you up so early? She said, I have the horrors of drink
upon me, as I have been drinking for some days past. I said why dont you go to
Mrs. Ringers (meaning the Public House at the corner of Dorset Street called the
Britannia) and have a pint of beer. She said I have been there and had it, but I
have brought it all up again, at the same time she pointed to some vomit in the
roadway. I then passed on, and went to Bishopsgate on an errand, and returned
to Dorset Street about 9 a.m.
150

Spedding 2008-2016
135
I then noticed deceased standing outside Ringers public house; [Britannia pub;]
she was talking to a man, age I think about 30, height about 5ft. 5in. stout, dressed
as a market porter. I was some distance away and am doubtful whether I could
identify him. The deceased wore a dark dress, black velvet body, and coloured
wrapper round her neck.
We remind our readers what Barnett had said; and that was that he was out of
employment for the past 3 or 4 months, which would have been in July or August.
He remained with the victim during this time until October 30th, when in
consequence of not earning sufficient money to give her and her resorting to
prostitution, he left her. At the inquest, he changed this story: I left her because
she had a person who was a prostitute whom she took in and I objected to her
doing so, that was the only reason, not because I was out of work.
In other words, the victim did not resort to prostitution whilst Barnett was
unemployed from July or August, and this is corroborated by Maxwell: since Joe
Barnett left her, which would have been on October 30th, she has obtained her
living as an unfortunate, and not earlier. It may answer the question as to how the
rent climbed to 1.50 (6-7 week rent). It does not however answer why the landlord
would have allowed such an amount to accumulate, creating a bad example to
other lodgers.
Initially, Maxwell said she had seen the victim at 08:30 a.m. on the morning the
police were notified of the crime. The victim was standing at the corner of Millers
Court in Dorset Street and had a brief conversation with the witness. Apparently,
the victim went sick and pointed to it in the roadway; witness then advised her to
have a drink, but the victim motioned with her head that she had been drinking beer
that morning at the Britannia pub and it was this morning beer that caused the
sickness. Maxwell gave extraordinary advice; but it should not surprise.
Coroner Baxter himself explained, how in most, if not half of his cases, the problem
of alcoholism loomed centre stage.
Generally speaking the question of drunkenness, directly or indirectly, enters into
half the inquests which I hold. It is treated as a joke, as a rule for my juries, coming
as they do from the working classes, do not appear to think anything of it. My usual
question is was the deceased the worse for drink? and the reply given in an
unconcerned tone is, Oh, he had had a drop, as if it was the proper thing to do.

Spedding 2008-2016
136
I believe there are numbers of hard-working men who would have good homes if
only they had good wives, but the women are never at home to meet them, or have
anything ready for them after their days work.
In many cases we have the fact stated that the husband quietly goes to bed when
his wife is still out of doors drinking with her friends.
Monday is essentially a day of drinking. Many men are totally unaware that their
wives take their husbands Sunday clothes on Monday morning to the pawnshop,
pledge them and spend the money thus obtained in drink. On the Saturday, when
their husbands get his wages, the clothes are taken out of pledge, but they are
returned to the pawnshop on the Monday.
Wynne E. Baxter (1892)
151
Returning to Maxwell, she went on her morning chores to return in the

neighbourhood around 09:00 a.m., and that is when she saw the victim again, this
time talking to a man outside the Britannia pub about twenty-five yards away,
152
or between 14 and 16 yards away. 153

Description of the man talking to the victim
Gender:
Male
Age:
30
Height:
5ft. 5in.
Build/Clothes:
Stout and dressed as a market porter
Daily Telegraph
November 13, 1888.
Coroner
Maxwell
What description can you give of this man?

I could not give you any, as they were at some distance.
-INTERVENTION-Abberline: The distance is about sixteen yards.

Maxwell
I am sure it was the deceased. I am willing to swear it.
Coroner
You are sworn now. Was he a tall man?
Maxwell
No; he was a little taller than me and stout.
-INTERVENTION-Abberline: On consideration, I should say the distance was 25 yards.

Coroner
What clothes had the man?
Maxwell
Dark clothes; he seemed to have a plaid coat on. I could not say what sort
of hat he had.
151
Auckland Star, November 19, 1892.

The Echo, November 12, 1888.
153
Morning Advertiser, November 13, 1888.
152

Spedding 2008-2016
137
Being Maxwell was at a distance, she couldnt give the Coroner a description of the
mans face whom she saw with the victim; a man never found, nor did he voluntarily
come forward. But it shows the man was a stranger to Maxwell.
An intervention comes from Inspector Abberline that the distance was just 16 yards
(14-15 meters). The intervention must have upset Maxwell, for she says, I am sure
it was the deceased. I am willing to swear it. The Coroner did not doubt Maxwell
that the victim could not be recognized; only that the unknown man could not be
described. But notice how this witnesss description leans towards a real one as
opposed to Coxs for the reasons we gave earlier.
Inspector Abberline, to calm any nervous foot tapping he may have heard, widened
the distance between witness and unknown man to 25 yards (22-23 meters). This
would be a logical enough distance to justify why Maxwell could not describe a
strangers features with certainty. But 25 yards is not so distant; we dont know
however if Maxwell had good eyesight. She could only give them the mans height
(short and stout) including what he wore: Dark clothes; he seemed to have a plaid
coat on. The man was also wearing a hat, but Maxwell didnt know its type. She
must have been asked however if it was a tall silk hat, because she said,
I should have noticed if the man had had a tall silk hat, but we are
accustomed to see men of all sorts with women. I should not like to pledge
myself to the kind of hat.
Maxwells inquest testimony was felt to be so important, that she had to be

cautioned by the Coroner: You must be very careful about your evidence, because
it is different to other peoples.
The police did not doubt Maxwell saw and spoke to the victim as she stated; but
they believed it took place the previous morning instead of the morning the crime
was discovered. 154 It is unknown if the authorities had some evidence that led them
to believe this witness account was piled onto a wrong date; if there was, we were
not able to find it.
Maxwell described to the press what the victim was wearing when she saw her that
morning: . . .black, with red trimming (Daily News, Nov. 12. 1888).
Many outstanding issues crop up with the statement of Caroline Maxwell.
154
Daily News, November 13, 1888.

Spedding 2008-2016
138
Did the police investigate the Britannia pub to corroborate or not Maxwells story
that the victim was there that morning drinking beer? Since the police investigated
Coxs story, they must have investigated Maxwells. We do not however have any
police report to corroborate this, and it remains only of what the police should have
investigated.
Neither is there any information if the police compared Schwartzs description of
the man seen harassing Stride against Cox and Maxwells descriptions.
Another outstanding factor would be if the police searched the roadway for
traces/remains of sickness, since the police statements were taken on the same
day the crime was discovered (November 9th) and streets may not have been
swept. Weather-wise, there was a constant drizzle, but still, some police search of
the roadway may have been possible.
Finally, we do not know if the authorities had Cox and Maxwell composite a sketch
to compare if it looked like the same man they saw, who was suspected to have
been seen with the victim before the Millers Court murder.
A newspaper article revealed how another witness was suspected to have seen the
victim on the morning of November 9th. This was Maurice (or Morris) Lewis, a tailor
of Dorset Street, who knew the victim for some years. Lewis unintentionally
corroborated Maxwells testimony, when she told the police she saw the victim
around 09:00 a.m. outside the Britannia pub.
November 17, 1888.
Soon after ten oclock in the morning he [Lewis] was playing with others [the
scavengers?] at pitch and toss [an illegal game] in McCarthys Court, when he
heard a lad call out copper, and he and his companions rushed away and entered
a beer-house at the corner of Dorset Street, known as Ringers. [Britannia pub.] He
was positive that on going in, he saw Mary Jane Kelly drinking with some other
people, but is not certain whether there was a man amongst them. He went home
to Dorset Street on leaving the [public] house, and about half an hour afterwards
heard that Kelly had been found in her room murdered. It would then be close upon
eleven oclock.
Reporters picked up all these press stories from the locals whilst police and
surgeons were at the crime scene. However, even the press were doubting such
reports that were stating the victim was seen on the morning of November 9th,

Spedding 2008-2016
139
either due to a mistake, or was one of those mischievous inventions which add so
immensely to the labours and worries of the police (The Echo, Nov. 10. 1888).
Sarah Lewis with a friend 155
Illustrated Police News | November 17, 1888.
Sarah Lewis was the seventh witness the

police called to testify and she appeared at the
inquest in that order. This witness testified to
seeing five different individuals in the early
hours of November 9th: Three men and two women.
[Police] Statement of Sarah Lewis, No. 34, Great Pearl Street, Spitalfields, a laundress.
156
Between 2 and 3 oclock this morning, [November 9th,] I came to stop with the
Keylers at No. 2 Millers Court as I had had a few words with my husband. When I
came up the Court, there was a man standing over against the lodging- house on
the opposite side in Dorset Street [talking to a female - deleted] but I cannot
describe him.
Shortly before 4 oclock, I heard a scream like that of a young woman, and seemed
to be not far away; she screamed out murder. I only heard it once. I did not look
out at the window.
I did not know the deceased. [There is a marginal note - I left the Keylers at 5:30
p.m.]
Sarah Lewis further said that when in company with another female on Wednesday
evening last [November 7th] at Bethnal Green, a suspicious man accosted her; he
carried a black bag.
Lewis, it seems, had a row with her husband, which caused a variable to have her
on the streets in the early morning hours of November 9th. She knew the Keylers,
residents at Millers Court occupying Room No. 2, and so between 02:00 a.m. and
03:00 a.m. (she wasnt specific) as she came up Millers Court, she saw a man
(couldnt describe him) standing outside Crossinghams lodging-house at 35,
Dorset Street, talking to a female. The stricken out words are as in the original
police statement, so it is not clear if the man outside the lodging-house was alone
or talking with a woman. We will refer to him as the lodging-house man.
155
A photograph of Sarah Lewis (copyright of the Church family) may be found within Chris Scotts article, entitled The Life
of Sarah Lewis (1865-1941) which was published in the Ripperologist, No. 133 of August 2013.
156

Spedding 2008-2016
140
When Lewis retired, it was shortly before four and told the police of hearing a female
scream Murder not far away; it was only heard once. She did not look out of the
window. The press reported the scream came from where the landlords shop was
(Morning Advertiser, Nov. 13. 1888). A day later, other newspaper articles were
reporting on this same subject, which could have allowed (at least with the
neighbours) to fall into the trap of hearsay accounts.
Closing her police statement, Lewis gave a brief account of the Bethnal Green Road
incident and the suspicious man, holding a bag, who asked her and her female
companion to follow him. We will refer to this man as the Bethnal Green Road
man.
At the inquest, Sarah Lewis narrowed down the time she went to Millers Court to
visit the Keylers; it was 02.30 a.m., now able to pinpoint the time, which had been
by looking at the Spitalfields Church clock as she passed it. No mention why this
wasnt remembered two days earlier when talking to the police.
Witness then goes into the account of seeing the lodging-house man, and was
now able to describe him as not tall, but stout, had on a wide-awake black hat,
but could not describe his clothes. She did however give details of his behaviour:
He was looking up the Court as if waiting for someone to come out. At the same
time, she remembered seeing a couple pass by; nothing peculiar about them.
There is no question from Coroner and Jury asking Lewis why she did not mention
these additional details, including the couple she saw, two days earlier when she
gave her police statement. So she then goes into her account on hearing a scream:
a little before 4, I heard a female voice shout loudly one Murder! The sound
seemed to come from the direction of deceased room; there was only one scream
-I took no notice of it.
The scream in Lewis police statement became a loud shout at the inquest
appearance; and, instead of it coming from not far away, as it had two days ago,
it now came from the direction of deceased room.
So this witness told two different versions of what and where a scream was
suspected to have been heard and this is termed as coercion. Who coerced the
witness between November 9th and November 12th is impossible to ascertain;
neither do we know if it was the same person who coerced Barnett and Bowyer.

Spedding 2008-2016
Written statement - Nov 9th
141
Inquest Testimony - Nov 12th
02:00-03:00 a.m.
02.30 a.m.
Arrived at Millers Court; not certain of Arrived at Millers Court; pinpointed the time
the time.
by looking at the Spitalfields Church clock as

she passed it.
Sees a man (probably alone) outside a Sees a man (alone) outside a lodging-house
lodging-house across from Millers across from Millers Court; he was looking up
Court.
the Court as though he was waiting for

someone to come out.
Couple not mentioned
Sees a couple pass by.
The press gave a reason why Sarah Lewis did not take any notice of the scream
that she is supposed to have heard: A short time before, there had been a row in
the Court. 157 No other witness testified to acknowledging a row had taken place in
Millers Court that morning.
If Lewis witnessed or heard about this row, it would have occurred between the time
she arrived (02:00 and 02:30 a.m.) and when she heard the scream, which was
shortly before 04:00 a.m. If she did not witness or hear the row, then the only other
persons to tell her about it would have been the Keylers.
Lewis closed her inquest appearance by telling Coroner and Jury about the
Bethnal Green Road man, and how she saw him at 02.30 a.m. on November 9th
as she went to the Keylers; the man was not alone.
about half past two when I was coming to Millers Court, I met the same man
[from Bethnal Green Road] with a female in Commercial Street near Mr. Ringers
Public House [the Britannia pub] near the market. He had then no overcoat on, but
he had the bag and the same hat, trousers and undercoat.
So Lewis saw a total of five people in the street at 02.30 a.m. on November 9th:
Two women and three men. None of these people came forward as witnesses. At
the time Lewis witnessed these five individuals, Hutchinson is supposed to be
shadowing the area (as he stated) and many researchers have presumed that he
was the lodging-house man. If so, Lewis would have recognized the man at the
inquest and would have told Coroner and Jury it was Barnett she saw. In addition,
Barnett would have seen Lewis, the couple that passed in front of him, and also
the Bethnal Green Road man talking with a woman near the Britannia pub.
Hutchinson said nothing about seeing these people.
157
(a) Daily News, November 13, 1888; (b) The Times, November 13, 1888.

Spedding 2008-2016
142
On the other hand, if Hutchinson corroborated at least one person Lewis saw, he
may have been accused of being in cahoots with her; so he either decides to ignore
the individuals she saw, or he was not in the area at 02.30 a.m. and so bluffed his
way through the equation.
It is also easy to speculate how Lewis may have prepared the ground for
Hutchinsons statement. Willingly or not, she became his incognito alibi, and no
doubt Inspector Abberline would have considered this. It does not however make it
a factual circumstance that Hutchinson was in the area from 02.00 a.m.
There were some press reports, how a Mrs. Kennedys sayings were very similar
to what Lewis testified to in regards to the Bethnal Green Road incident. In addition,
Kennedys story had her seeing three people near the Britannia pub at the same
time as Lewis saw five individuals, which is not only bizarre, but quite peculiar,
because Hutchinson saw no one else except the victim and his well-dressed
foreign suspect. One newspaper reported Kennedy didnt recognize anyone. . .
The Star
November 10, 1888.
There was a man -a young man, respectably dressed, and with a dark moustachetalking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a female poorly clad, and
without any headgear. The man and woman appeared to be the worse for liquor,
and she heard the man ask, Are you coming. Whereupon the woman, who
appeared to be obstinate, turned in an opposite direction to which the man
apparently wished her to go.
And in another newspaper report, Kennedy did recognize someone, and that
someone was the victim. . .
Evening News
November 10, 1888.
Immediately opposite the house in which Mary Jane Kelly was murdered is a
tenement occupied by an Irishman, named Gallagher, and his family. On Thursday
night [November 8th] Gallagher and his wife retired to rest at a fairly early hour.
Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs. Kennedy, came home, however, at
a late hour. Passing the Britannia [pub], commonly known as Ringers, at the top
of Dorset street, at three oclock on the Friday morning, [November 9th,] she saw
the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man, [Bethnal Green Road man,]
whom she identified as having accosted her a night or two before.
She passed them without taking any notice, and went home to bed. Between half
past three and four oclock in the morning Mrs. Kennedy, who passed a very

Spedding 2008-2016
143
restless night, heard a cry of Murder that seemed to come from the opposite side
of the Court, but according to her, she little thought of the awful tragedy that was
then being enacted. She went to sleep, and it was not until eleven oclock in the
morning that she heard of the murder.
So far as can be ascertained, Mrs. Kennedy is the only person who heard the cry
of Murder that came from the unfortunate woman. In connection with Mrs.
Kennedy, it may be mentioned that she and her sister, a widow, were, on
Wednesday night last, [November 7th,] accosted by a man when they were walking
down the Bethnal Green road. It was about eight oclock when this occurred.
So according the above newspaper report, Sarah Lewis was Mrs. Kennedys sister.
Even so, the former did not mention to the police, nor to Coroner and Jury, that she
was with her sister on November 9th when she saw a total of five people in the
street at 02.30-03:00 a.m. Kennedy was never called to testify even though the
governments favourite newspaper went to report that Inspector Abberline had
interviewed her.
The Times
November 12, 1888.
Detective-Inspector Abberline has interviewed a girl named Kennedy, who states
that about half-past 3 on the morning of the murder she went to her parents house,
which is opposite the room occupied by Mary Jane Kelly, and on reaching the
Court she saw a woman talking to two men. Shortly afterwards, when inside her
fathers house she heard a cry of murder in a womans voice, and she alleges the
sound came from the direction of Kellys room.
Up to this point, in regards to witnesses, the police were basing their investigation
on circumstantial evidence and hearsay accounts, which was admissible at the time
in a murder inquest. (Marriott 2007)
Inspector Walter Beck of H-Division Commercial Street Station testified next.
158
There has been no trace of his official report. This is unusual being he was the first
ranking officer to arrive at the crime scene. We have some suspicion that Bowyer
was not the person who ran into the Police Station on the morning of November
9th; it would explain (to some degree) why Inspector Becks official report has never
surfaced, or may not have been written.
I was the first police officer called to 13, Millers Court by McCarthy. I sent for the
doctor [Phillips] and closed the Court to all persons. I do not know by whose order
158

Spedding 2008-2016
144
the door was forced. I was there. The doctor was the first to enter the room. It was
shortly after 11 oclock when I was called.
Inspector Beck is careful not to mention names of who it was who ran into the Police
Station on the morning of November 9th, only that it was McCarthy the landlord
who had sent for the police. The Inspector could not say on whose authority the
door was forced open, even though he was present.
Lloyds Weekly News | November 11, 1888.
The sketch specifically gives emphasis on the large window (marked with an X); but it was through
the smaller window where the body was first seen by witnesses and by Dr. Phillips.
The final witness to present was the medical officer in charge of

the case. Dr. Phillips inquest testimony was nowhere near
complete. Before any actual forensic evidence was presented,
the inquest ended having his appearance purely typical and his short testimony not
adhering to what the law stated.
SUMMONS FOR MEDICAL WITNESS
(Melsheimer 1888/Coroners Act 1887).
Coroners Inquest at [LOCATION] upon the body of [VICTIMS NAME]. By virtue of this my
order as coroner for [COUNTY], you are required to appear before me and the jury at on
the day of [INQUEST OPENING DATE], one thousand eight hundred and [YEAR], at [TIME] of
the clock, to give evidence touching the cause of death of [VICTIMS NAME], [and then added
when the witness is required to make or assist at a post-mortem examination, and make
or assist in making a post-mortem examination of the body, with or without an analysis,
as the case may be], and report thereon at the said inquest.
(Signed) Coroner.
To [NAME OF SURGEON OR M.D., AS THE CASE MAY BE].
Dr. Phillips Deposition

November 12, 1888. 159
I am a surgeon to H-Division of Metropolitan Police and reside at 2, Spital Square. 160 I was called
by the police on Friday morning last [November 9th] about 11 oclock [in the morning] and
proceeded to Millers Court, which I entered at 11:15 a.m. I found a room, the door of which led
out of the passage near 26, Dorset Street, and having two windows. I produce a photograph I
159

Charles Knight, London, Vol. II.: Spital Square was an area of sober looking brick houses in the heart of the silk-district of
London, the centre from whence that employment springs by which the weavers are supported.
160

Spedding 2008-2016
145
had taken -there are two windows in the Court- 2 of the panes in the window nearest the passage
were broken, and finding the door locked, I looked through the lower broken pane 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 on the bed or within view to
whom I could render any professional assistance. 161
Having ascertained that probably it was advisable that no entrance should be made into the room
at that time, I remained until about 1:30 [p.m.] when the door was broken open; I think by Mr.
McCarthy -I think by direction of Superintendent Arnold who had arrived. When I arrived the
premises were in charge of Inspector Beck.
On the door being opened, it knocked against a table; the table I found close to the left hand side
of the bedstead and bedstead was close up against the wooden partition. The mutilated remain
of a female were lying two thirds over towards the edge of the bestead, nearest to the door of
entry. She had only her under linen garment on her, and from my subsequent examination, I am
sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from that side
of the bedstead, which was nearest to the wooden partitions.
The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow,
sheet, at the top corner nearest the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the
right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of her 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.
The medical officer managed to squeeze into the meager time given to him a
photograph he had taken, which showed the outside area of the crime scene (given
earlier). Should the good doctor have sent for a photographer before
Superintendent Arnold arrived, is possible; but we have no mention of it from any
official. A majority of researchers believe the photograph presented by the doctor
was taken the day the crime was discovered, which is mostly based on the medical
officers deposition as he described two panes in the window nearest the passage,
were broken, and he found the door locked, which tells us he tried to open it.
The Echo
November 10, 1888.
The door was fastened, not that it had been locked from the inside; but, having a
catch-lock, the person who had gone out last had merely slammed the door behind
him, and it had thus become fastened.
Some reports have the Superintendent ordering one of the windows to be entirely
removed (The Star, Nov. 10. 1888) so the police could gain entrance; but the most
circulated story is that he gave the order for the landlord to break open the door
161
Dr. Phillips managed to view the entire room from outside.

Spedding 2008-2016
146
with a pickaxe. It was reported that by 2:40 p.m., medical officers were now in the
room, and everything was being photographed, 162 until 4:30 p.m., 163 but we do not
find the time when the photographer arrived. Rumbelow stated something of
interest worth mentioning.
Stranger still was the fact that the photograph was the work of the City Police, in
spite of the dressing down they had received from Sir Charles Warren for being in
Whitechapel. A story which explains this, although it is at variance with the
newspaper accounts, is that although the Metropolitan Police didnt dare to disobey
Warrens order and break down Kellys doorway before the bloodhounds arrived,
the City Police did so as they ran no such risks.
Apparently as the morning dragged on, and nothing happened in Millers Court,
somebody quietly asked the City Police for their help which they gave by breaking
into Kellys room and taking the photograph of her body as their only justification
for doing so. Certainly all the surviving photographs of Ripper victims were taken
by the City of London Police. Curiously enough, they may have taken others.
Donald Rumbelow (1975) 164
There are two witness accounts that serve to trigger the closure of this murder
inquest: Mary Ann Cox and George Hutchinsons. Here is what we believe
happened which is based on the evidence presented in this case.
After the first witness was called to testify, the Coroner received a note from the
medical officer, Dr. Phillips.
Murder Inquest | extract

November 12, 1888. 165
CORONER The doctor has sent a note asking whether we shall want his
attendance here today. I take it that it would be convenient that he should tell us
roughly what the cause of death was, so as to enable the body to be buried. [Burial
however took place 7 days after the Coroner was reading this to the Jury.] It will
not be necessary to go into the details of the doctors evidence, but he suggested
that he might come to state roughly the cause of death.
JURY Acquiesced in the proposed course.
Six witnesses then took the stand including Dr. Phillips who gave cause of death
(severance of the right carotid artery). The Jury understood that more detailed
162
The Echo, November 9, 1888.

164
Rumbelow, Donald. The Complete Jack the Ripper. Boston: New York Graphic Society, 1975. Print.
165
163

Spedding 2008-2016
147
evidence of the medical examination would be given at a further hearing (The

Times, Nov. 13. 1888); in other words, the good doctor would be called at a further
date of the inquest. The inquest proceedings adjourned for only a few minutes,
having the Coroner quite frustrated with the Jury upon their return.
It has come to my ears, he said, that somebody has been making a statement to
some of the Jury as to their right and duty of being here. Has anyone during the
interval spoken to the Jury, saying that they should not be here today?
166
Apparently, the Coroner addressed the public, but it was the Jury who replied in the
negative, and so the inquest continued, but not with additional testimony from the
medical officer, who was now expected -by the Jury- to return with additional
evidence at some point within the week.
Four more witness testimonies were heard. The Coroner then gave his opinion that
the inquest hearing should close under the pretense that it was very unnecessary
for two courts to deal with these cases, and go through the same evidence time
after time, which only causes expense and trouble.
It is not clear what Coroner MacDonald meant by two courts and these cases,
but he further said he was informed by the police (this must have been during the
interval) that they were content to take the future conduct of the case, and so
allowed no alternative path for the Jury but to find their verdict and so close the
inquest; it never reopened to accept further evidence from Dr. Phillips.
In order for the police to inform the Coroner that they would handle the future
conduct of the case, implies they ordered the inquest to close. For the authoritative
side to request the closure of an inquest, only one possible reason exists: When
someone will be charged with causing the death of the victim the inquest is held
upon; this would avoid two different courts examining the same evidence. 167 And
this is what Coroner MacDonald meant when he said it was very unnecessary for
two courts to deal with these cases, and go through the same evidence time after
time. Apparently, the police had in mind someone who would face murder charges
on the Millers Court case the day of the inquest.
No proof exists that the police had in mind Hutchinsons well-dressed suspect of
Jewish appearance, even though some press said this witness gave his
166
167

Coroners Inquests. Web. Bereavement Advice Center. Web. 2014. <https://www.bereavementadvice.org/>

Spedding 2008-2016
148
information to the police before the inquest closed. On the other hand, proof exists
that the police heard of Coxs suspect whilst the inquest was ongoing, which shows
-if Hutchinson gave his testimony after the inquest closed- that her testimony
triggered the closure of the inquest.
The Echo
November 13, 1888.
Cox followed behind the pair, and saw them enter Kellys room. The man turned
round as he entered and closed the door, and Cox must have had a good view of
him then, if not previously. The man was, it was at first presumed, the murderer.
At the end of the day, the press were confident that the Millers Court murder was
committed by the same man who had murdered Eddowes; their reasoning was
simple wishful thinking: Two such monsters in human form there cannot be (The
Times, Nov. 10. 1888).
Reporters from the Daily News, including others, tell us that the following day of the
murder, a large crowd loitered about Dorset Street. The visitors were not confined
to the poorer classes, for besides two officials of the Royal Irish Constabulary and
two or three members of Parliament, a prominent Post Office official inspected the
scene of the murder. 168
Why would British MPs, Irish police officers, and post office officials be interested
in visiting a prostitutes crime scene, has never been recorded; but we can give a
reason why the British MPs and Irish police officers visited the crime scene, but not
why the post office officials found it necessary to attend.
The Royal Pardon was issued one day after the crime was discovered. It seems
logical that the British MPs would visit the crime scene to decide upon the issues
of this subject. As to why the Irish police officers were there, would be because the
victim was reported as being Irish born. It would be logical the British authorities
request the Irish police officers to assist their investigation on the victims pedigree.
168

Spedding 2008-2016
149
VI
A witness statement, like an investigators theory, represents one
persons view of the crime that may or may not be accurate. In other
words, the witness statement is one more description of events to test
against the physical evidence.
Chisum and Turvey (2007)
The Millers Court victim was a prostitute; this allowed for easy access into her
personal world, regardless if she herself would have allowed any interference into
her more personal bubble, as she allowed with Barnett. So a question automatically
rises as to how the offender chose this particular prostitute out of the other
prostitutes in the neighbourhood. Social legal studies have been conducted by
Warwick and Jones and are of interest.
Jack the Ripper functions as a crystallization of the particular conditions of
Whitechapel in 1888: The poverty that made his victims vulnerable and provided
the tightly packed streets that enabled his escape and apparent invisibility.
Alexandra Warwick (2006) 169
Far too often the victims are seen as extras in the story of the Whitechapel
murderer, when the real story is that of the unfortunate women in a society where
the lack of opportunity afforded to them forced them down a path that led to their
murders; thus, Victorian society was somewhat implicit in the murder of these
women.
Gregg Jon Jones (2013) 170
Even so, these studies do not assist in answering if the victim was chosen randomly
or purposely. Convenience does seem to slip into the offenders choice, as Kelly
was renting a private room; but so was another prostitute residing in Millers Court,
this being Cox who lived in Room No. 5. Many researchers believe the other women
in the Court were also prostitutes.
In order to answer the question if the offender chose Kelly randomly or purposely,
we would need to know the offenders character, upbringing, mannerism and
psyche, which is not available since he was never apprehended to be interviewed
169
Warwick, Alexandra. The Scene of the Crime: Inventing the Serial Killer. Social Legal Studies (SAGE). Web. 2006.
University of Westminster. Web. May 2016. <http://sls.sagepub.com>
170
Jones, G.J. Murder, Media and Mythology: The Impact the Medias Reporting of the Whitechapel Murders had on
National Identity, Social Reform and the Myth of Jack the Ripper. Web. Reinvention: An International Journal of
Undergraduate Research, BCUR/ICUR. Web. 2013, Special Issue. Web. May 2016. <http://www.warwick.ac.uk>

Spedding 2008-2016
150
and/or studied. But one fact remains, and that is that this particular crime had a
different modus operandi from the Jack the Ripper crimes, which was from
approaching the victim to the method used. These elements were inconclusive (or
not touched upon) in 1888 and it cannot be mentioned today that these issues have
been resolved.
Finally, though there is a bizarre legal battle to keep Jack the Ripper files secret
so Victorian sources keep their confidentiality (Mail Online 2011),
171
we can say
with some certainty that most of the material that has survived from the ripper
murders of 1888 has been revealed and deposited into the public domain, but
clearly these murders in general suffer an impediment for reasons that is beyond
our scope to research in this work.
Evening Post
November 19, 1888.
Funeral of the Victim at Leytonstone this Morning. At noon to-day the remains of the
unfortunate woman, Mary Janet Kelly, who was murdered on Friday week last, were removed
from the Shoreditch Mortuary and interred in the Roman Catholic cemetery at Leytonstone. The
funeral arrangements were carried out by Mr. Wilson, the parish mortuary-keeper and undertaker
of Shoreditch, by order of Mr. Coroner Macdonald.
The start was witnessed by a crowd consisting chiefly of working class people, but among
them were a large number of women with whom the deceased had associated. A strong body of
police were in attendance, but their services were not specially called for. The crowd was orderly,
and the chief topic of conversation was the circumstances of the murder and others that had
preceded it. The coffin was of elm and polished oak, and on the lid was a simple plate with the
name of deceased, following which were the words -Died November 9, 1888. The hearse was
drawn up at the front gate of the churchyard, and the coffin was carried from the mortuary to the
hearse. The man, Barrett [sic- Barnett] who formerly lived with deceased, and the landlord of the
room in which she lived, Mr. McCarthy, followed; also three females who had known the deceased
during her lifetime -Harriet Bowdry, Elizabeth Allbrook, and Eliza Fleming. [Relation to Joseph
Fleming?]
Two floral crowns and a cross were placed on the coffin, which was carried from the
mortuary to the front gate and placed in an open funeral car. Two mourning carriages followed,
and the cortege proceeded at a slow pace up the Hackney Road, and through Lea Bridge Road
to the cemetery. Thousands of people followed. Mr. H. Wilton, we are informed, has undertaken
the entire expenses of the funeral out of sympathy for the deceased.
I have written, you have read, the matter is before you; judge of it.
Aristotle
171
Police make bizarre legal battle to keep Jack the Ripper files secret so Victorian sources keep their confidentiality.
Web. Mail Online. May 15, 2011. Web. 2014.

Miller&#39;s Court Murder - London 1888

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Miller&#39;s Court Murder - London 1888

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Millers Court Murder - London 1888

Background contemporary sketch of Dorset Street (London 1888)