On Wednesday 11th September 1889, there came a sensationalist headline titled "Mystery of Mysteries'', in The New York Herald which told its readers that "London in general, and Whitechapel in particular, were thrown into a feverish state of excitement yesterday morning by the news that "Jack the Ripper" had murdered and mutilated his ninth victim. On Wednesday 10 September 1889, at 5:15 am, Police Constable William Pennett came upon a woman's torso under the railway arch on Pinchin Street, Whitechapel. The arms were still attached to whatever was left of the body, though there were no legs or head. These parts were never found. Immediately, the PC William Pennett summoned assistance and when Inspector Charles Pinhorn, H Division, arrived shortly after 5:30 am two constables were already there.
Newspaper speculation reported that the body belonged to a woman called Lydia Hart, who had disappeared quite recently but later was found recovering in hospital after "a bit of a spree".Another claim that the victim was a missing girl called Emily Barker was also refuted, as the torso was from an older and taller woman. However, none of this could be verified.
Michael Keating a witness said in his inquest that, On the night of the 9th. between 11 and 12 o'clock, I went to sleep in the railway arch on Pinchin-street. I went there because I did not have the price of my lodgings. When I went there I did not see anyone, and neither did I see anything under the arch. I was not sober. I do not remember noticing anybody in particular, but there were some people about Pinchin-street when I went in. I soon fell asleep and did not wake up during the night. The police woke me up, and when I came out of the arch I noticed the trunk of a body in the next arch. An inspector was in the act of covering it up with a sack in which I kept my blacking box. I could not say if I was sober enough to have noticed the body if it had been there when I went in. I did not go into the railway arch in which it was found. I do not remember anyone else coming into the arch in which I was, but when I woke I saw two more men coming out of the other side. I had never slept there before. I happened to be passing by, and, finding the arch open and thinking it was a quiet place, I went in to sleep.
On the same day, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, James Monro, forwarded a seven-page report to the Home Office regarding " the finding of the trunk of a female, minus head & legs in one of the railway arches in Pinchin Street."Monro then went on to explain, "This street is close to Berner Street which was the scene of one of the previous Whitechapel murders which were that of Elizabeth Stride. It is not a very narrow street but is lonely at night, & is patrolled every half hour by a constable on the beat. The arch where the body was found abuts the pavement. The constable discovered the body somewhat after 20 minutes past five on the morning of Tuesday. He is positive that when he passed the spot about five the body was not there. It may therefore be assumed that the body was placed where it was found sometime between 5 to 5.30 am. Although the body was placed in the arch on Tuesday morning, the murder was not committed there or then. There was almost no blood in the arch, and the state of the body itself showed that death took place about 36 hours ago. This then enables me to say that the woman was killed on Sunday night, the 8th of September.
Monro then went on to state that in the previous cases death had been caused by cutting the throat, whereas, in the case of the Pinchin Street victim, there was nothing to show that death was caused by the throat having been cut.
Whereas, in the previous cases, the bodies had been mutilated, in this latest case there was no mutilation "other than dismemberment".Previous victims had suffered evisceration, but the Pinchin Street victim most certainly hadn't.In several of the previous cases there had been a removal of certain parts of the body, whereas with the Pinchin Street victim "There is no removal of any portion of the organs of generation or intestines..."
Concerning the location of the previous murders, Monro pointed out that, they had all been committed in the street, "...except in one instance in Dorset Street " when, "...there were distinct traces of furious mania, the murderer having plenty of time at his disposal slashed and cut the body in all directions, evidently under the influence of frenzy."Conceding that, in the respect of the indoor murder of Mary Kelly, the killing of the Pinchin Street victim had also been committed indoors, "...probably in the lodging of the murderer...", Monro went on to stress that, in the latter case, "...there is no sign of frenzied mutilation of the body, but of deliberate & skilful dismemberment with a view to removal...".
Monro then went on to point out that "These are all very striking departures from the practice of the Whitechapel murderer, and if the body had been found elsewhere that in Whitechapel the supposition that death had been caused by the Ripper would probably not have been entertained..."In conclusion, Monro stated, " I am inclined to the belief that taking one thing with another, this is not the work of the Whitechapel murderer.
Inevitably, since the remains were found close to a previous murder site, and the killing itself had, possibly, taken place on the anniversary of a previous Jack the Ripper atrocity, the police had little choice but to consider the dreadful possibility that the ripper had returned.Within hours of the remains being discovered, Chief Inspector Donald Sutherland Swanson was at pains to point out that the killer's modus operandi bore little resemblance to the modus operandi of Jack the Ripper. "What becomes most apparent," he stated, in a report on 10th September 1888, "is the absence of the attack upon the genitals as in the series of Whitechapel murders beginning at Buck's Row and ending in Miller's Court. Certainly, if it is a murder there was time enough for the murderer to cut off the head and limbs there was time to mutilate as in the series mentioned..."
Despite its lurid headline suggesting that the ripper had returned the Herald article, under a section headlined "A DIFFERENT METHOD OF MUTILATION", went on to opine, "A perusal of the circumstances of former atrocities of this nature only serves to confuse the reader's mind as to the possible origin of this last crime. It differs from the Whitechapel series in the fact that the head and lower limbs were amputated, and in the other fact that the hands were left undisturbed, but it resembles them in the infliction of the deep longitudinal cut along the lower half of the trunk.
By, this time there came one truly interesting suspect called William Henry Bury. He was hanged in the April of 1889, but as the newspapers later concluded there appeared a strong connection. The New York Times suggested he was the Ripper, due to similarities between the stab wounds he inflicted upon his late wife, Ellen, and those found on the body of Polly Nichols. Ellen was strangled to death, and then stabbed deeply in the abdomen. The police at the time made certain links between Bury and the Ripper, as they sent Inspector Abberline north to investigate the matter. It was also suggested that the words "Jack the Ripper'' were written in chalk on the door of Bury's residence. Bury's wife was also a former prostitute. Beadle later discovered that Bury was in the habit of sleeping with a penknife under his pillow. But it was never known to be exact since he was hanged.
The final victim, whose name appears on the Whitechapel Murders file, is of Frances Coles.
Her body was discovered at 2.15 am on Friday 13th February 1891 by Police Constable Ernest Thompson as he was passing through an archway of the Great Eastern Railway, which leads from Swallow-gardens to Ormond-street.
Thompson had passed the spot 15 minutes before and was adamant that the body hadn't been there then. Returning at 2.15 am he heard a man's footsteps walking away from him, and looking into the arch he noticed a figure lying on the ground. Shining his lamp onto it he found, to his horror, that it was the body of a woman and that she was lying in a pool of blood, which was flowing from a terrible wound in the throat that ran from ear to ear. Thompson immediately blew his whistle to raise the alarm and the neighbouring beat officers, PC Hyde and PC Hinton, came running to the scene. They were soon joined by Police-constable Elliott who was on plain clothes duty in adjacent Royal Mint street.
Elliot later stated that shortly after 2 o'clock he had heard a whistle blown, and ongoing to Swallow-gardens saw a constable with his lamp turned on the body of a woman. he later stated that he was certain that he would have heard any cry from the woman, but everything was very quiet until he heard the whistle. Checking for signs of life, the officers found the body to be quite warm and they also felt a very faint pulse.PC Hyde was then sent to fetch the local medic, Dr Oxley, who arrived at the scene and pronounced life extinct. PC Hinton, meanwhile, headed off to the Police Station to fetch a senior officer.
He returned with Inspector Flanagan who promptly ordered the police officers who were now arriving at the scene to search the area and to stop and question anybody who they thought suspicious or who might be able to provide any information.Meanwhile, under instructions issued during the murders of 1888, Flanagan ordered that the body was to remain in the position in which it was discovered, and he then carried out an in-depth search of the surroundings for clues.Soon Dr George Bagster Philips, the Divisional Police Surgeon, had arrived at the scene and, on examining the body, he found two cuts to the woman's throat, which, he stated, were "sufficient to account for death."Crucially, Philips believed that the nature of the wound and the posture of the body did not connect this murder "...with the series of previous murders which were accompanied by mutilation..."
PC Thompson arrived on the first day of the inquest, according to his inquest:
That night happened to be his first solo beat duty. He appeared on the first day of the inquest:
I went on duty at 10 p.m.as to patrol Chamber-street and Prescott-street. I started from the bottom of Chamber-street up that street, and then along Prescott-street. In doing so I passed small portions of Mansell and Leman streets. Three arches are leading from Chamber-street to Royal Mint-street. The railway is over each of these passages.
Coroner:What time did you pass from Chamber-street to go under the arch? -
PC Thompson:As near 2:15 as I can tell. The entrance to the arch is opposite the Catholic schools. At that time I did not know the place was known by the name of Swallow-gardens, but I have heard so since. The roadway under the arch is partially taken away and boarded up from the crown of the arch to the ground. What remains is a roadway, enabling one cart to pass at a time. I should say the length of the arch is something over 40 yards. There are two ordinary street gas lamps to light this arch, and they throw light down the archway. I cannot tell the exact position of the light at the other entrance. If I was standing at the Chamber-street entrance to the archway I should be able to see anyone in the centre of the arch. I could see right through it, and I can do this at night. The centre part is not very light in the daytime. The archway is much used by carts and horses belonging to the Great Northern Railway Company. Their stables, which are about 30 yards away from the arch, are in Chamber-street. At a quarter-past 2, I came up Chamber-street from Leman-street. About 80 yards away from the arch I looked at the clock on the top of the tower of the Co-operative Stores in Leman-street. It was then very near 2:15. I walked directly up Chamber-street to the arch. I turned down the arch intending to go as far as Royal Mint-street. While proceeding from Leman-street to the arch I did not see anyone. When I turned into the passage I could see the woman lying under the arch on the roadway, about midway. I turned my lamp on as soon as I got there. I could not see it was a woman until I turned my lamp on. I noticed some blood. I saw her open and shut one eye. I blew my whistle three times. Constables 161 H and 275 H came to me in three or four minutes. They both came from Royal Mint-street; 161 H came first. I heard footsteps when I was going up Chamber-street and before I reached the arch. The sound was in the direction of Mansell-street, but I did not see anyone. They sounded like a person walking at an ordinary rate.
Coroner:How far were you from the arch then? -
PC Thompson:As near as I can tell about 80 yards. I heard no one going through the arch in the direction of Royal Mint-street.
CoronerCan you say whether these footsteps had come out of the arch?
PC Thompson:- No, Sir.
Coroner:Then they may have been going right down Chamber-street? -
PC Thompson: I never heard them before. As soon as the constables arrived 161 H went for Dr Oxley, in Dock-street, while 275 H went to Leman-street Police station. Dr Oxley then arrived and examined the body. Then other policemen arrived. I had not seen anyone about that night except the railwaymen. They are going about all night and through this arch. The horses that are engaged in shunting have to go backwards and forwards through it. Just before 2 a.m. I went from Chamber-street through the arch to Royal Mint-street and back again. Then I went up Mansell-street, Prescott-street, and back again. On the last occasion, I did not see anyone.
Coroner:Were there any railway people near the spot at the time? -
PC Thompson: No. Some men were working in the stables, and that was the nearest spot where there was anyone about.
The Foreman. - How long did it take you to do your beat? -
PC Thompson:Between 15 and 20 minutes. I passed through the railway arch each time I came up Chamber-street, and also through the other two arches.
Coroner:Did anyone, besides the constables, come after you blew your whistle? -
PC Thompson:Some railwaymen arrived, with horses, after the officers were there
Several newspapers were quick to connect this murder with the previous Jack the Ripper murders and, on 14th February 1891, The Times reported that:-
Another murder, although not so fiendish in all its details as those which were enacted within a comparatively short period of one another in Whitechapel in 1888 and 1889, has been committed in the same district, and the many similar circumstances surrounding this latest mysterious crime seem to point to its being the work of the same person. The place, the time, the character of the victim, and other points of resemblance, recall in the most obvious way the series of crimes associated in the popular mind with the so-called "Jack the Ripper..."