In the early days of the investigation, CID inspector Howard Vincent had adopted a new policy that the police were, under no circumstances, will be permitted to talk to journalists about their cases. He stated that:-Police must not on any account give any information whatever to gentlemen connected with the press, relative to matters within police knowledge, or relative to duties to be performed or orders received, or communicate in any manner, either directly or indirectly, with editors, or reporters of newspapers, on any matter connected with the public service, without express and special authority...The slightest deviation from this rule may completely frustrate the ends of justice, and defeat the endeavour of superior officers to advance the welfare of the public service. Individual merit will be invariably recognized in due course, but officers, who without authority give publicity to discoveries, tending to produce sensation and alarm, show themselves wholly unworthy of their posts."The police now were cautious about the matter, and rarely spoke about their case. A major fear and possibly a very reasonable one was that if the police were to tell journalists about the lines of enquiry they were following, then the subsequent press reportage might well tip off possible suspects that the police were on to them. Early in the investigation, the police had seen the danger posed by sensationalist press reportage when the Leather Apron scares almost set off an anti-Jewish pogrom in the East End of London. Thus the police chose to try and keep journalists at arm's length to keep their lines of enquiry from becoming public knowledge.
However and unfortunately for the police, the ripper crimes generated a huge amount of press coverage and the general public was desperate to pore over every salacious detail of the case. Starved of news by the police, journalists adopted several means of obtaining information. They would shadow individual constables or detectives in the hope they would lead them to a suspect or a witness. They would track down and interview witnesses to see if they could glean a hint as to what stage if any, the police investigation had reached. They would try to bribe officers or attempt to loosen their tongues with a drink. Some journalists even dressed up as women and set off into the streets of Whitechapel in the hope that they might be accosted by Jack the Ripper and, in so doing, gain a sensational scoop for their newspaper. And, when all else failed, they could always make up stories.
Henry Matthews, the Home Secretary, addressed the House of Commons and defended his decision not to offer a reward:-
Before 1884 it was the common practice for the Home Office to offer rewards, and sometimes large amounts, in the case of serious crimes.
In 1883 in particular several rewards, ranging from £200. to £2,000, were offered in such cases as the murder of Police-constable Boans, and the dynamite explosions in Charles-street.
These rewards, like the £10,000 reward for the Phoenix Park murders, were ineffectual and produced no evidence of any value.
In 1884 there was a policy change. 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 W. Harcourt to consider the whole question.
He consulted the police authorities both in England and Ireland, and the conclusions he arrived at were "that the practices of offering large sensational rewards in cases of such serious crimes are not only ineffectual, but mischievous; that the rewards produce, 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 have tended 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 was a shocking murder and violation of a little girl at Middlesborough, and the other the dynamite outrage at London-bridge, in which case the City offered £5,000 reward.
The whole subject was reconsidered in 1885 by Sir R. Cross in a remarkable case of infanticide at Plymouth, and again in 1886 by an honourable gentleman who is a member of Edinburgh, Mr Childers in the notorious case of Louisa Hart. In both cases, with the concurrence of the best authorities, the principle was maintained, and a reward was refused.
Since I have been at the Home Office I have followed the rule thus laid down and steadily adhered to by my predecessors. I do not mean that the rule may not be subject to exceptions, 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.
In the Whitechapel murders not only are these conditions wanted 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 would 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 House that neither the Home Office nor Scotland-yard will leave a stone unturned in order to bring to justice the perpetrators of these abominable crimes which have outraged the feelings of the entire community."
Investigation into the murder of Mary Kelly led police to the doors of John Kelly. According to their report, he was declared clinically insane and incarcerated in 1883 for stabbing his wife to death. According to the report Kelly escaped from Broadmoor Asylum in 1888 before the Whitechapel murders began. Kelly had killed his wife due to a delusion that his wife was a prostitute who had given him a venereal disease.
His attacks on his wife were similar to slash wounds that the Ripper inflicted on his weapons,but he was never brought into custody. Mostly because he couldn't be placed at the site of these murders.
According to a report On 25 October 1888, Robert Anderson wrote to Bond asking him to examine material connected with the Jack the Ripper investigation. In his letter, Anderson enclosed copies of the evidence given at the inquests into the murders of Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes, and asked Bond to deliver his "opinion on the matter."
Bond examined the papers for two weeks and replied to Anderson on 10 November 1888. And Bond was performing autopsy on the corpse of Mary Jane Kelly, who had been killed the morning before in Dorset Street.
Bond's report said:
"I beg to report that I have read the notes of the 4 Whitechapel Murders viz:
1. Buck's Row.
2. Hanbury Street.
3. Berner's Street.
4. Mitre Square.
I have also made a Post Mortem Examination of the mutilated remains of a woman found yesterday in a small room in Dorset Street -
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 owing to the extensive mutilation, it is impossible to say in what direction the fatal cut was made, but arterial blood was found on the wall in splashes close to where the woman's head must have been lying.
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.
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 discovery of the body.
In one case, that of Berner's Street, the discovery appears to have been made immediately after the deed - In Buck's Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed. In the Dorset Street case, the body was lying on the bed at the time of my visit, 2 o'clock, quite naked and mutilated as in the annexed report -
Rigour Mortis had set in but increased during the progress of the examination. From this, it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death as the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in. The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock and the remains of a recently taken meal were found in the stomach and scattered about over the intestines. It is, therefore, pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours and the partly digested food would indicate: that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder.
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 woman's head was much cut and saturated with blood, indicating that the face may have been covered with the sheet at the time of the attack.
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 onto the wall.
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.
7. The mutilations in each case except the Berners Street one were all of the same characters and showed clearly that in all the murders, the object was mutilation.
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 cutting up dead animals.
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 butcher's knife or a surgeon's knife. I think it was no doubt a straight knife.
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. He must in my opinion be a man subject to periodical attacks of Homicidal and erotic mania. The character of the mutilations indicates that the man may be in a condition sexually, that may be called satyriasis. It is of course possible that the Homicidal impulse may have developed from a revengeful or brooding condition of the mind, or that Religious Mania may have been the original disease, but I do not think either hypothesis is likely. The murderer in external appearance is quite likely to be a quiet inoffensive-looking man probably middle-aged and neatly and respectably dressed. I think he must be in the habit of wearing a cloak or overcoat or he could hardly have escaped notice in the streets if the blood on his hands or clothes were visible.
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.
I am, Dear Sir,
Yours faithfully,
Thomas. Bond