|
Explore JTR
- Inquests
Mary Ann Nichols
|
|
Day 1, Saturday, September 1, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, Monday, September 3, 1888, Page 3)
On Saturday [1 Sep] Mr.
Wynne E. Baxter, the coroner for South-East Middlesex, opened
an inquiry at the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel-road,
into the circumstances attending the death of a woman
supposed to be Mary Ann Nicholls, who was discovered lying
dead on the pavement in Buck's-row, Baker's-row, Whitechapel,
early on Friday morning. Her throat was cut, and she had
other terrible injuries.
Inspector Helston, who has the case
in hand, attended, with other officers, on behalf of the
Criminal Investigation Department.
Edward Walker deposed:
I live at 15, Maidwell-street, Albany-road, Camberwell, and have
no occupation. I was a smith when I was at work, but I am not
now. I have seen the body in the mortuary, and to the best of my
belief it is my daughter; but I have not seen her for three
years. I recognise her by her general appearance and by a little
mark she has had on her forehead since she was a child. She also
had either one or two teeth out, the same as the woman I have
just seen. My daughter's name was Mary Ann Nicholls, and she had
been married twenty-two years. Her husband's name is William
Nicholls, and he is alive. He is a machinist. They have been
living apart about seven or eight years. I last heard of her
before Easter. She was forty-two years of age.
The Coroner: How did you see her?
Witness: She wrote to me.
The Coroner: Is this letter in her
handwriting?
Witness: Yes, that is her writing. The letter, which was
dated April 17, 1888, was read by the Coroner, and referred to a
place which the deceased had gone to at Wandsworth.
The Coroner: When did you last see
her alive?
Witness: Two years ago last June.
The Coroner: Was she then in a good
situation?
Witness: I don't know. I was not on
speaking terms with her. She had been living with me three or
four years previously, but thought she could better herself, so I
let her go.
The Coroner: What did she do after
she left you?
Witness: I don't know.
The Coroner: This letter seems to
suggest that she was in a decent situation.
Witness: She had only just gone
there.
The Coroner: Was she a sober woman?
Witness: Well, at times she drank,
and that was why we did not agree.
The Coroner: Was she fast?
Witness: No; I never heard of
anything of that sort. She used to go with some young women and
men that she knew, but I never heard of anything improper.
The Coroner: Have you any idea what
she has been doing lately?
Witness: I have not the slightest
idea.
The Coroner: She must have drunk
heavily for you to turn her out of doors?
Witness: I never turned her out. She
had no need to be like this while I had a home for her.
The Coroner: How is it that she and
her husband were not living together?
Witness: When she was confined her
husband took on with the young woman who came to nurse her, and
they parted, he living with the nurse, by whom he has another
family.
The Coroner: Have you any reasonable
doubt that this is your daughter?
Witness: No, I have not. I know
nothing about her acquaintances, or what she had been doing for a
living. I had no idea she was over here in this part of the town.
She has had five children, the eldest being twenty-one years old
and the youngest eight or nine years. One of them lives with me,
and the other four are with their father.
The Coroner: Has she ever lived with
anybody since she left her husband?
Witness: I believe she was once
stopping with a man in York-street, Walworth. His name was Drew,
and he was a smith by trade. He is living there now, I believe.
The parish of Lambeth summoned her husband for the keep of the
children, but the summons was dismissed, as it was proved that
she was then living with another man. I don't know who that man
was.
The Coroner: Was she ever in the
workhouse?
Witness: Yes, sir; Lambeth
Workhouse, in April last, and went from there to a situation at
Wandsworth.
By the Jury: The husband resides at
Coburg-road, Old Kent-road. I don't know if he knows of her
death.
Coroner: Is there anything you know
of likely to throw any light upon this affair?
Witness: No; I don't think she had
any enemies, she was too good for that.
John Neil,
police-constable, 97J, said: Yesterday morning I was proceeding
down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady-street. There
was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour
previously, and I saw no one then. I was on the right-hand side
of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It
was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at
the end of the row. I went across and found deceased lying
outside a gateway, her head towards the east. The gateway was
closed. It was about nine or ten feet high, and led to some
stables. There were houses from the gateway eastward, and the
School Board school occupies the westward. On the opposite side
of the road is Essex Wharf. Deceased was lying lengthways along
the street, her left hand touching the gate. I examined the body
by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in
the throat. She was lying on her back, with her clothes
disarranged. I felt her arm, which was quite warm from the joints
upwards. Her eyes were wide open. Her bonnet was off and lying at
her side, close to the left hand. I heard a constable passing
Brady-street, so I called him. I did not whistle. I said to him,
"Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn," and, seeing another
constable in Baker's-row, I sent him for the ambulance. The
doctor arrived in a very short time. I had, in the meantime, rung
the bell at Essex Wharf, and asked if any disturbance had been
heard. The reply was "No." Sergeant Kirby came after,
and he knocked. The doctor looked at the woman and then said,
"Move her to the mortuary. She is dead, and I will make a
further examination of her." We placed her on the ambulance,
and moved her there. Inspector Spratley came to the mortuary, and
while taking a description of the deceased turned up her clothes,
and found that she was disembowelled. This had not been noticed
by any of them before. On the body was found a piece of comb and
a bit of looking-glass. No money was found, but an unmarked white
handkerchief was found in her pocket.
The Coroner: Did you notice any
blood where she was found?
Witness: There was a pool of blood
just where her neck was lying. It was running from the wound in
her neck.
The Coroner: Did you hear any noise
that night?
Witness: No; I heard nothing. The
farthest I had been that night was just through the
Whitechapel-road and up Baker's-row. I was never far away from
the spot.
The Coroner: Whitechapel-road is
busy in the early morning, I believe. Could anybody have escaped
that way?
Witness: Oh yes, sir. I saw a number
of women in the main road going home. At that time any one could
have got away.
The Coroner: Some one searched the
ground, I believe?
Witness: Yes; I examined it while
the doctor was being sent for. Inspector Spratley: I examined the
road, sir, in daylight.
A Juryman (to witness): Did you see
a trap in the road at all?
Witness: No.
A Juryman: Knowing that the body was
warm, did it not strike you that it might just have been laid
there, and that the woman was killed elsewhere?
Witness: I examined the road, but
did not see the mark of wheels. The first to arrive on the scene
after I had discovered the body were two men who work at a
slaughterhouse opposite. They said they knew nothing of the
affair, and that they had not heard any screams. I had previously
seen the men at work. That would be about a quarter-past three,
or half an hour before I found the body.
Henry Llewellyn [Reese Ralph Llewellyn], surgeon, said: On Friday morning I was called to Buck's-row about
four o'clock. The constable told me what I was wanted for. On
reaching Buck's-row I found the deceased woman lying flat on her
back in the pathway, her legs extended. I found she was dead, and
that she had severe injuries to her throat. Her hands and wrists
were cold, but the body and lower extremities were warm. I
examined her chest and felt the heart. It was dark at the time. I
believe she had not been dead more than half-an-hour. I am quite
certain that the injuries to her neck were not self-inflicted.
There was very little blood round the neck. There were no marks
of any struggle or of blood, as if the body had been dragged. I
told the police to take her to the mortuary, and I would make
another examination. About an hour later I was sent for by the
Inspector to see the injuries he had discovered on the body. I
went, and saw that the abdomen was cut very extensively. I have
this morning made a post-mortem examination of the body. I found
it to be that of a female about forty or forty-five years. Five
of the teeth are missing, and there is a slight laceration of the
tongue. On the right side of the face there is a bruise running
along the lower part of the jaw. It might have been caused by a
blow with the fist or pressure by the thumb. On the left side of
the face there was a circular bruise, which also might have been
done by the pressure of the fingers. On the left side of the
neck, about an inch below the jaw, there was an incision about
four inches long and running from a point immediately below the
ear. An inch below on the same side, and commencing about an inch
in front of it, was a circular incision terminating at a point
about three inches below the right jaw. This incision completely
severs all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels
of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision is about
eight inches long. These cuts must have been caused with a
long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great
violence. No blood at all was found on the breast either of the
body or clothes. There were no injuries about the body till just
about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the
left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. It was a very
deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several
incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there
were also three or four similar cuts running downwards. All these
had been caused by a knife, which had been used violently and
been used downwards. The wounds were from left to right, and
might have been done by a left-handed person. All the injuries
had been done by the same instrument.
The inquiry was adjourned till to-morrow [sic,
('today', 3 Sep)].
[Back to the Top]
Day 2, Monday, September 3, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, September 4, 1888, Page 2)
Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, the coroner for
South-East Middlesex, yesterday [3
Sep] resumed his inquiry at the
Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel-road, into the
circumstances attending the death of the woman Mary Ann
Nicholls, who was discovered lying dead on the pavement in
Buck's-row, Baker's-row, Whitechapel, early on Friday morning
last.
Inspectors Helston and Aberline
attended for the police; whilst Detective- sergeant Enright,
of Scotland-year, was also in attendance.
Inspector John Spratling,
J Division, deposed that he first heard of the murder about
half-past four on Friday morning, while he was in Hackney-road.
He proceeded to Buck's-row, where he saw Police-constable Thain,
who showed him the place where the deceased had been found. He
noticed a blood stain on the footpath. The body of deceased had
been removed to the mortuary in Old Montague- street, where
witness had an opportunity of preparing a description. The skin
presented the appearance of not having been washed for some time
previous to the murder. On his arrival Dr. Llewellyn made an
examination of the body which lasted about ten minutes.
Witness said he next saw the body
when it was stripped.
Detective-sergeant Enright: That was
done by two of the workhouse officials.
The Coroner: Had they any authority
to strip the body?
Witness: No, sir; I gave them no
instructions to strip it. In fact, I told them to leave it as it
was.
The Coroner: I don't object to their
stripping the body, but we ought to have evidence about the
clothes.
Sergeant Enright, continuing, said
the clothes, which were lying in a heap in the yard, consisted of
a reddish-brown ulster, with seven large brass buttons, and a
brown dress, which looked new. There were also a woollen and a
flannel petticoat, belonging to the workhouse. Inspector Helson
had cut out pieces marked "P. R., Princes-road," with a
view to tracing the body. There was also a pair of stays, in
fairly good condition, but witness did not notice how they were
adjusted.
The Coroner said he considered it
important to know the exact state in which the stays were found.
On the suggestion of Inspector Aberline,
the clothes were sent for.
The Foreman of the jury asked
whether the stays were fastened on the body.
Inspector Spratling replied that he
could not say for certain. There was blood on the upper part of
the dress body, and also on the ulster, but he only saw a little
on the under-linen, and that might have happened after the
removal of the body from Buck's-row. The clothes were fastened
when he first saw the body. The stays did not fit very tightly,
for he was able to see the wounds without unfastening them. About
six o'clock that day he made an examination at Buck's- row and
Brady-street, which ran across Baker's-row, but he failed to
trace any marks of blood. He subsequently examined, in company
with Sergeant Godley, the East London and District Railway lines
and embankment, and also the Great Eastern Railway yard, without,
however, finding any traces. A watchman of the Great Eastern
Railway, whose box was fifty or sixty yards from the spot where
the body was discovered, heard nothing particular on the night of
the murder.
Witness also visited half a dozen
persons living in the same neighbourhood, none of whom had
noticed anything at all suspicious. One of these, Mrs. Purkiss,
had not gone to bed at the time the body of deceased was found,
and her husband was of opinion that if there had been any
screaming in Buck's-row they would have heard it. A Mrs. Green,
whose window looked out upon the very spot where the body was
discovered, said nothing had attracted her attention on the
morning of Friday last.
Replying to a question from one of the
jury, witness stated that Constable Neil was the only one
whose duty it was to pass through Buck's-row, but another
constable passing along Broad-street from time to time would be
within hearing distance.
In reply to a juryman, witness said
it was his firm belief that the woman had her clothes on at the
time she was murdered.
Henry Tomkins,
horse-slaughterer, 12, Coventry-street, Bethnal-green, was the
next witness. He deposed that he was in the employ of Messrs.
Barber, and was working in the slaughterhouse, Winthrop-street,
from between eight and nine o'clock on Thursday evening till
twenty minutes past four on Friday morning. He and his fellow
workmen usually went home upon finishing their work, but on that
morning they did not do so. They went to see the dead woman,
Police-constable Thain having passed the slaughterhouse at about
a quarter-past four, and told them that a murder had been
committed in Buck's-row. Two other men, James Mumford and Charles
Britten, had been working in the slaughterhouse. He (witness) and
Britten left the slaughterhouse for one hour between midnight and
one o'clock in the morning, but not afterwards till they went to
see the body. The distance from Winthrop-street to Buck's-row was
not great.
The Coroner: Is your work noisy?
Witness: No, sir, very quiet.
The Coroner: Was it quiet on Friday
morning, say after two o'clock?
Witness: Yes, sir, quite quiet. The
gates were open and we heard no cry.
The Coroner: Did anybody come to the
slaughterhouse that night?
Witness: Nobody passed except the
policeman.
The Coroner: Are there any women
about there?
Witness: Oh! I know nothing about
them, I don't like 'em.
The Coroner: I did not ask you
whether you like them; I ask you whether there were any about
that night.
Witness: I did not see any.
The Coroner: Not in
Whitechapel-road?
Witness: Oh, yes, there, of all
sorts and sizes; its a rough neighbourhood, I can tell you.
Witness, in reply to further questions,
said the slaughter-house was too far away from the spot where
deceased was found for him to have heard if anybody had called
for assistance. When he arrived at Buck's-row the doctor and two
or three policemen were there. He believed that two other men,
whom he did not know, were also there. He waited till the body
was taken away, previous to which about a dozen men came up. He
heard no statement as to how the deceased came to be in
Buck's-row.
The Coroner: Have you read any
statement in the newspapers that there were two people, besides
the police and the doctor, in Buck's-row, when you arrived?
Witness: I cannot say, sir.
The Coroner: Then you did not see a
soul from one o'clock on Friday morning till a quarter-past four,
when the policeman passed your slaughterhouse?
Witness: No, sir.
A Juryman: Did you hear any vehicle
pass the slaughterhouse? - No, sir.
[Juryman?] Would you have heard it
if there had been one? - Yes, sir.
[Juryman?] Where did you go between
twenty minutes past twelve and one o'clock? - I and my mate went
to the front of the road.
[Juryman?] Is not your usual hour
for leaving off work six o'clock in the morning, and not four? -
No; it is according to what we have to do. Sometimes it is one
time and sometimes another.
[Juryman?] What made the constable
come and tell you about the murder? - He called for his cape.
Inspector Jos. Helson
deposed that he first received information about the murder at a
quarter before seven on Friday morning. He afterwards went to the
mortuary, where he saw the body with the clothes still on it. The
dress was fastened in front, with the exception of a few buttons,
the stays, which were attached with clasps, were also fastened.
He noticed blood on the hair, and on the collars of the dress and
ulster, but not on the back of the skirts. There were no cuts in
the clothes, and no indications of any struggle having taken
place. The only suspicious mark discovered in the neighbourhood
of Buck's-row was in Broad-street, where there was a stain which
might have been blood.
Witness was of opinion that the body
had not been carried to Buck's-row, but that the murder was
committed on the spot.
Police-constable Mizen
said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was
at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who
passed in company with another man informed him that he was
wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying.
When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance.
At that time nobody but Neil was with the body.
Chas. Andrew Cross,
carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford
and Co. for over twenty years. About half-past three on Friday he
left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row. He
discerned on the opposite side something lying against the
gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He
thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of
the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then
heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty
yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When
he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here;
there is a woman lying on the pavement." They both crossed
over to the body, and witness took hold of the woman's hands,
which were cold and limp. Witness said, "I believe she is
dead." He touched her face, which felt warm. The other man,
placing his hand on her heart, said "I think she is
breathing, but very little if she is." Witness suggested
that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to
touch her. Just then they heard a policeman coming. Witness did
not notice that her throat was cut, the night being very dark. He
and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met
the last witness, whom they informed that they had seen a woman
lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be
either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."
The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on.
The other man left witness soon after. Witness had never seen him
before.
Replying to the coroner, witness denied
having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row. There was nobody
there when he and the other man left. In his opinion deceased
looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but
he had no idea that there were any serious injuries.
The Coroner: Did the other man tell
you who he was?
Witness: No, sir; he merely said
that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time.
I was behind time myself.
A Juryman: Did you tell Constable
Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
Witness: No, because I did not see a
policeman in Buck's-row.
Wm. Nicholls [Nichols], printer's machinist,
Coburg-road, Old Kent-road, said deceased was his wife, but they
had lived apart for eight years. He last saw her alive about
three years ago, and had not heard from her since. He did not
know what she had been doing in the meantime.
A Juryman: It is said that you were
summoned by the Lambeth Union for her maintenance, and you
pleaded that she was living with another man. Was he the
blacksmith whom she had lived with?
Witness: No; it was not the same; it
was another man. I had her watched.
Witness further deposed that he did
not leave his wife, but that she left him of her own accord. She
had no occasion for so doing. If it had not been for her drinking
habits they would have got on all right together.
Emily Holland, a
married woman, living at 18, Thrawl-street, said deceased had
stayed at her lodgings for about six weeks, but had not been
there during the last ten days or so. About half-past two on
Friday morning witness saw deceased walking down Osborne-street,
Whitechapel-road. She was alone, and very much the worse for
drink. She informed witness that where she had been living they
would not allow her to return because she could not pay for her
room. Witness persuaded her to go home. She refused, adding that
she had earned her lodging money three times that day. She then
went along the Whitechapel-road. Witness did not know in what way
she obtained a living. She always seemed to her to be a quiet
woman, and kept very much to herself.
In reply to further questions witness said
she had never seen deceased quarrel with anybody. She gave her
the impression of being weighed down by some trouble. When she
left the witness at the corner of Osborne-street, she said she
would soon be back.
Mary Ann Monk
was the last witness examined. She deposed to having seen
deceased about seven o'clock entering a public-house in the New
Kent-road. She had seen her before in the workhouse, and had no
knowledge of her means of livelihood.
The inquiry was then adjourned until Sept. 17.
[Back to the Top]