Inquest · 1 September 1888, 3 September 1888, 17 September 1888, 22 September 1888
The inquest into the death of Mary Ann 'Polly' Nichols
Editorial summaryCompiled by the research team from the transcribed press reports.
Baxter opened the inquest on Saturday 1 September, the day after the murder, at the Working Lads' Institute on Whitechapel Road. After the jury viewed the body at the workhouse mortuary, the first day heard Nichols's father, PC John Neil, who found her, and Dr Rees Llewellyn, whose post-mortem evidence of a throat cut to the spine and deep abdominal wounds made with 'a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence' caused a sensation. The adjourned sittings on 3 and 17 September established the timeline: Emily Holland's sighting at 2.30 a.m., and the discovery at about 3.40-3.45 a.m. by the carmen Charles Cross (Lechmere) and Robert Paul and, minutes later, by PC Neil. A conflict emerged between PC Mizen, who said a carman told him another policeman wanted him in Buck's Row, and Cross, who denied it. Residents, watchmen and slaughtermen nearby had heard nothing, and it emerged that two workhouse inmates, Robert Mann and James Hatfield, had stripped the body at the workhouse mortuary without instructions, so that the evidence of the clothing was compromised; the coroner also remarked on Whitechapel's need for a proper mortuary. Summing up on 22 September, Baxter concluded that the body had been found at about 3.45 a.m. and that she had been killed on the exact spot where she was found, and noted that hers was one of four murders 'presenting many points of similarity' in five months, while reasoning that the killer's bloodstains could have passed unnoticed in a district full of slaughterhouses. The jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against some person or persons unknown, with a rider supporting the call for a proper Whitechapel mortuary.
About these reports. No official verbatim transcript is used here. Each testimony comes from a newspaper's report of the hearing, read through a modern transcription. Reporters condensed and paraphrased, and papers sometimes differ. Where a second paper's version exists, it is shown as well. Inside quotations, "[...]" marks text left out by this project. Bracketed words such as "[Coroner]" were added by the transcriber.
Witnesses
Edward Walker
father of the deceased; identified the body
Gave evidence 1 September 1888
Editorial summary of the evidence
Nichols's father, a former smith, identified the body by a childhood scar on the forehead and missing teeth, though he had not seen her for about two years. He said she had been married to William Nichols for over twenty years but they had lived apart for seven or eight years, that she drank at times, and that she had written to him in April 1888 from a domestic situation in Wandsworth. He blamed the separation on William's relationship with the nurse who attended her confinement and said: 'I don't think she had any enemies, she was too good for that.'
Verbatim report: The Daily Telegraph, 3 September 1888, p. 3
Historical text, verbatim:
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.
Casebook transcription: Mary Ann 'Polly' Nichols inquest, day 1 (1 September 1888), from The Daily Telegraph, 3 September 1888, p. 3 · Inquest day 1 (sitting of 1 September 1888); The Daily Telegraph, 3 September 1888, p. 3 · Transcription PC John Neil (97J)
police constable who found the body
Gave evidence 1 September 1888
Editorial summary of the evidence
Walking his beat along Buck's Row towards Brady Street, Neil found a woman lying outside a closed stable gateway, her throat cut and blood oozing from the wound, her arm 'quite warm from the joints upwards' and her eyes wide open. He signalled a passing constable (Thain) to fetch Dr Llewellyn and sent another for the ambulance, roused Essex Wharf (no one had heard anything), and noted that the abdominal wounds were only discovered later by Inspector Spratling at the mortuary. He had passed the spot half an hour earlier and seen no one, and found no wheel marks.
Verbatim report: The Daily Telegraph, 3 September 1888, p. 3
Content notice: graphic material
This item describes or shows severe injuries in explicit detail. It is part of the historical record and is shown for evidential reasons only.
Your choice applies to this kind of material for the rest of this browser session.
Also recorded as: Neale; Neil; PC 97J; Neill
Dr Rees Ralph Llewellyn
surgeon (Whitechapel Road) who examined the body at the scene and made the post-mortem
Gave evidence 1 September 1888 and 17 September 1888 (recalled)
Editorial summary of the evidence
Called to Buck's Row at about 4 a.m., Llewellyn found the woman dead with severe throat injuries; her hands and wrists were cold but body and legs warm, and he thought she had been dead no more than half an hour. At the post-mortem he described bruising on the jaw and face, two throat incisions severing all tissues to the vertebrae, and deep, jagged abdominal wounds made with 'a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence', possibly by a left-handed person. Recalled on 17 September, he said no part of the viscera was missing. (The Telegraph printed his first name as 'Henry'.)
Verbatim report: The Daily Telegraph, 3 September 1888, p. 3
Content notice: graphic material
This item describes or shows severe injuries in explicit detail. It is part of the historical record and is shown for evidential reasons only.
Your choice applies to this kind of material for the rest of this browser session.
Verbatim report: The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2
Content notice: medical evidence
This testimony contains clinical descriptions of injuries and post-mortem findings.
Your choice applies to this kind of material for the rest of this browser session.
Also recorded as: Henry Llewellyn (misnamed in the Telegraph); Henry Llewellyn (as printed in DT); "Henry Llewellyn" (DT error); Dr Llewellyn
Inspector John Spratling (J Division)
police inspector; examined the scene and the body at the mortuary
Gave evidence 3 September 1888 and 17 September 1888 (recalled)
Editorial summary of the evidence
Spratling heard of the murder at about 4.30 a.m., saw the blood stain in Buck's Row, and at the mortuary discovered the abdominal mutilations while taking a description. He testified that workhouse inmates stripped the body without his instructions (Detective Sergeant Enright interjected a description of the clothing) and that his neighbourhood inquiries found no one who had heard anything. Recalled on 17 September, he admitted not all houses in Buck's Row had been canvassed.
Verbatim report: The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 1888, p. 2
Historical text, verbatim:
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.
Casebook transcription: Mary Ann 'Polly' Nichols inquest, day 2 (3 September 1888), from The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 1888, p. 2 · Inquest day 2 (sitting of 3 September 1888); The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 1888, p. 2 · Transcription Verbatim report: The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2
Historical text, verbatim:
[...] Inspector Abberline: We have not been able to find him. Inspector Spratley, J Division, stated he had made inquiries in Buck's-row, but not at all of the houses.
The Coroner: Then that will have to be done.
Witness added [Spratling] that he made inquiries at Green's, the wharf, Snider's factory, and also at the Great Eastern wharf, and no one had heard anything unusual on the morning of the murder. He had not called at any of the houses in Buck's-row, excepting at Mrs. Green's. He had seen the Board School keeper.
The Coroner: Is there not a gentleman at the G.E. Railway? I thought we should have had him here.
Witness: I saw him that morning, but he said he had heard nothing.
The witness added that when at the mortuary he had given instructions that the body was not to be touched.
Casebook transcription: Mary Ann 'Polly' Nichols inquest, day 3 (17 September 1888), from The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2 · Inquest day 3 (sitting of 17 September 1888); The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2 · Transcription Also recorded as: Insp. J Division
Henry Tomkins
horse-slaughterer working nearby in Winthrop Street
Gave evidence 3 September 1888
Editorial summary of the evidence
A horse-slaughterer at Barber's yard in Winthrop Street, Tomkins worked through the night with James Mumford and Charles Britten until about 4.20 a.m.; PC Thain had passed at about 4.15 a.m. and told them of the murder, and they went to see the body. He said the night was 'quite quiet', the gates were open and they heard no cry or vehicle and said he and Britten had only left the slaughterhouse between about 12.20 and 1 a.m.
Verbatim report: The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 1888, p. 2
Historical text, verbatim:
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.
Casebook transcription: Mary Ann 'Polly' Nichols inquest, day 2 (3 September 1888), from The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 1888, p. 2 · Inquest day 2 (sitting of 3 September 1888); The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 1888, p. 2 · Transcription Inspector Joseph Helson (J Division)
local CID inspector in charge of the case
Gave evidence 3 September 1888
Editorial summary of the evidence
The local CID inspector learned of the murder at about 6.45 a.m. and saw the body at the mortuary still clothed: the dress and stays were fastened, there were no cuts in the clothing, blood on the hair and collars but not the back of the skirts, and no sign of a struggle. He was of the opinion that she had been killed where she was found, not carried there.
Verbatim report: The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 1888, p. 2
Historical text, verbatim:
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.
Casebook transcription: Mary Ann 'Polly' Nichols inquest, day 2 (3 September 1888), from The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 1888, p. 2 · Inquest day 2 (sitting of 3 September 1888); The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 1888, p. 2 · Transcription Also recorded as: Helston; Insp.
PC Jonas Mizen (55H)
police constable told of the body by the two carmen
Gave evidence 3 September 1888
Editorial summary of the evidence
At about 3.45 a.m., at the corner of Hanbury Street and Baker's Row, Mizen was told by a carman passing with another man that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row, where a woman was lying. On arrival he found Neil alone with the body and was sent for the ambulance. His account that the carman said another policeman wanted him was later disputed by Cross.
Verbatim report: The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 1888, p. 2
Historical text, verbatim:
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.
Casebook transcription: Mary Ann 'Polly' Nichols inquest, day 2 (3 September 1888), from The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 1888, p. 2 · Inquest day 2 (sitting of 3 September 1888); The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 1888, p. 2 · Transcription Also recorded as: G. Mizen (Times); PC 55H; "G. Mizen, 56 H" (Times); "George Maizen, 55H" (ES/MA)
Charles Andrew Cross (Charles Allen Lechmere)
carman (Pickfords) who found the body
Gave evidence 3 September 1888
Editorial summary of the evidence
A Pickfords carman of over twenty years, Cross testified that on his way to work he saw what he took for a tarpaulin in the gateway, realised it was a woman, and called a passing man (Robert Paul) over; her hands were cold but her face warm, and Paul thought she might be faintly breathing. The two left to find a policeman and told PC Mizen in Baker's Row that she looked 'either dead or drunk'. He denied seeing PC Neil or telling Mizen that another constable wanted him. Historical research has since shown his legal name was Charles Allen Lechmere ('Cross' was his stepfather's surname); the Times printed him as 'George Cross'.
Verbatim report: The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 1888, p. 2
Historical text, verbatim:
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.
Casebook transcription: Mary Ann 'Polly' Nichols inquest, day 2 (3 September 1888), from The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 1888, p. 2 · Inquest day 2 (sitting of 3 September 1888); The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 1888, p. 2 · Transcription Also reported elsewhere. Compare the wording:
Verbatim report: Casebook transcription: The Times, 4 September 1888
Historical text, verbatim:
George Cross, a carman, stated that he left home on Friday morning at 20 minutes past 3, and he arrived at his work, at Broad-street, at 4 o'clock. Witness walked along Buck's-row, and saw something lying in front of the gateway like a tarpaulin. He then saw it was a woman. A man came along and witness spoke to him. They went and looked at the body. Witness, having felt one of the deceased woman's hands and finding it cold, said "I believe she is dead." The other man, having put his hand over her heart, said "I think she is breathing." He wanted witness to assist in shifting her, but he would not do so. He did not notice any blood, as it was very dark. They went to Baker's-row, saw the last witness, and told him there was a woman lying down in Buck's-row on the broad of her back. Witness also said he believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man stated he believed her to be dead. The constable replied "All right." The other man left witness at the corner of Hanbury-street and turned into Corbett's court. He appeared to be a carman, and was a stranger to the witness. At the time he did not think the woman had been murdered. Witness did not hear any sounds of a vehicle, and believed that had any one left the body after he got into Buck's-row he must have heard him.
Casebook transcription: The Times, 4 September 1888 · The Times, 4 September 1888 (reported as 'George Cross') · Transcription Also recorded as: Charles Allen Lechmere; Charles Cross; George Cross (Times misprint); Charles Lechmere; Charles Andrew Cross (DT); George Cross (Times); Charles Allen Cross (ES/MA); Carman Cross (Star)
William Nichols
estranged husband of the deceased; printer's machinist
Gave evidence 3 September 1888
Editorial summary of the evidence
The estranged husband, a printer's machinist, said they had lived apart for eight years and that he had not seen her for about three years. He denied deserting her, saying she left of her own accord and that her drinking caused the breakdown; asked about the Lambeth Union maintenance summons, he said she had then been living with another man and 'I had her watched'.
Verbatim report: The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 1888, p. 2
Historical text, verbatim:
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.
Casebook transcription: Mary Ann 'Polly' Nichols inquest, day 2 (3 September 1888), from The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 1888, p. 2 · Inquest day 2 (sitting of 3 September 1888); The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 1888, p. 2 · Transcription Emily Holland
lodging-house room-mate; last known person to see Nichols alive
Gave evidence 3 September 1888
Editorial summary of the evidence
A former room-mate at 18 Thrawl Street, Holland met Nichols at about 2.30 a.m. at the corner of Osborn Street and Whitechapel Road, 'very much the worse for drink'. Nichols said she had been turned away from her lodging for lack of money and had 'earned her lodging money three times that day', refused to come home with Holland, and walked off along Whitechapel Road saying she would soon be back. She was the last known person to see Nichols alive. (The Times reported this witness as 'Jane Oram'.)
Verbatim report: The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 1888, p. 2
Historical text, verbatim:
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.
Casebook transcription: Mary Ann 'Polly' Nichols inquest, day 2 (3 September 1888), from The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 1888, p. 2 · Inquest day 2 (sitting of 3 September 1888); The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 1888, p. 2 · Transcription Also reported elsewhere. Compare the wording:
Verbatim report: Casebook transcription: The Times, 4 September 1888
Historical text, verbatim:
Jane Oram, 18, Thrawl-street, Spitalfields, deposed that deceased had slept at the common lodging-house there for about six weeks. Witness and deceased had occupied the same bed. For eight or ten days she had not been to the lodging-house, but witness saw her on the morning of her death in the Whitechapel-road. Deceased told her she was living where men and women were allowed to sleep, but added she should come back and live with witness. Witness believed deceased stated she had been living in Flowery Dean-street. Deceased was the worse for drink and refused to stay with witness, although she did all she could to persuade her to do so. Witness did not think she was a fast woman. She was a clean woman, but witness had previously seen her the worse for drink.
Casebook transcription: The Times, 4 September 1888 · The Times, 4 September 1888 (reported as 'Jane Oram') · Transcription Also recorded as: Emily Holland (Echo); Jane Oran / Oram (ES/MA); Mrs. Holland
Mary Ann Monk
Lambeth Workhouse acquaintance; identified the body
Gave evidence 3 September 1888
Editorial summary of the evidence
An inmate of Lambeth Workhouse who had known Nichols there, Monk had helped identify the body. She deposed to having once seen her entering a public house in the New Kent Road at about seven o'clock and knew nothing of how she lived.
Verbatim report: The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 1888, p. 2
Historical text, verbatim:
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.
Casebook transcription: Mary Ann 'Polly' Nichols inquest, day 2 (3 September 1888), from The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 1888, p. 2 · Inquest day 2 (sitting of 3 September 1888); The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 1888, p. 2 · Transcription Emma Green
resident of New Cottage, next to the murder spot
Gave evidence 17 September 1888
Editorial summary of the evidence
Living in New Cottage, immediately beside the gateway where the body lay, Green heard no unusual sound during the night. She said rough people sometimes passed through but there were no disorderly houses in Buck's Row.
Verbatim report: The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2
Historical text, verbatim:
Emma Green, who lives in the cottage next to the scene of the murder in Buck's- row, stated that she had heard no unusual sound during the night.
By the Jury: Rough people often passed through the street, but she knew of no disorderly house in Buck's-row, all the houses being occupied by hardworking folk.
Casebook transcription: Mary Ann 'Polly' Nichols inquest, day 3 (17 September 1888), from The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2 · Inquest day 3 (sitting of 17 September 1888); The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2 · Transcription Also recorded as: Mrs Green
Thomas Ede (Eades)
East London Railway signalman who reported a man with a knife
Gave evidence 17 September 1888 and 22 September 1888 (recalled)
Editorial summary of the evidence
An East London Railway signalman, Ede described a man with an apparently wooden arm and a knife protruding from his pocket whom he saw in Cambridge Heath Road at noon on 8 September (the day of the Chapman murder). The coroner doubted its relevance but heard it. Recalled on 22 September, it emerged the man was John James, 'a harmless lunatic who is well known in the neighbourhood'.
Verbatim report: The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2
Historical text, verbatim:
Thomas Ede, a signalman in the employ of the East London Railway Company, said he saw a man with a knife on the morning of the 8th.
The coroner was of opinion that this incident could have no reference to the present inquiry, as the 8th was the day of the Hanbury-street murder. He would, however, accept the evidence.
Witness then said: On Saturday, the 8th inst., at noon, I was coming down the Cambridge-heath-road, and when near the Forester's Arms I saw a man on the other side of the street. His peculiar appearance made me take notice of him. He seemed to have a wooden arm. I watched him until level with the Forester's Arms, and then he put his hand to his trouser's pocket, and I saw about four inches of a knife. I followed him, but he quickened his pace, and I lost sight of him.
Inspector Helson, in reply to the coroner, stated that the man had not been found.
Witness described the man as 5 ft. 8 in. high, about thirty-five years of age, with a dark moustache and whiskers. He wore a double-peaked cap, a short dark brown jacket, and a pair of clean white overalls over dark trousers. The man walked as though he had a stiff knee, and he had a fearful look about the eyes. He seemed to be a mechanic.
By the Jury: He was not a muscular man.
Casebook transcription: Mary Ann 'Polly' Nichols inquest, day 3 (17 September 1888), from The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2 · Inquest day 3 (sitting of 17 September 1888); The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2 · Transcription Verbatim report: The Daily Telegraph, 24 September 1888, p. 3
Historical text, verbatim:
[...] Signalman Eades was recalled to supplement his previous evidence to the effect that he had seen a man named John James carrying a knife near the scene of the murder. It transpired, however, that this man is a harmless lunatic who is well known in the neighbourhood.
Casebook transcription: Mary Ann 'Polly' Nichols inquest, day 4 (22 September 1888), from The Daily Telegraph, 24 September 1888, p. 3 · Inquest day 4 (sitting of 22 September 1888); The Daily Telegraph, 24 September 1888, p. 3 · Transcription Also recorded as: Eades
Walter Purkiss
manager of Essex Wharf, living opposite the murder spot
Gave evidence 17 September 1888
Editorial summary of the evidence
Manager of Essex Wharf, whose house faced the murder spot, Purkiss slept in a second-floor front room and neither he nor his wife heard any sound.
Verbatim report: The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2
Historical text, verbatim:
Walter Purkess [Purkiss], manager, residing at Essex Wharf, deposed that his house fronted Buck's-row, opposite the gates where deceased was discovered. He slept in the front room on the second floor and had heard no sound, neither had his wife.
Casebook transcription: Mary Ann 'Polly' Nichols inquest, day 3 (17 September 1888), from The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2 · Inquest day 3 (sitting of 17 September 1888); The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2 · Transcription Also recorded as: Purkess; Purkis; Purkess (DT); Perkins (Lloyd's)
Patrick (reported as Alfred) Mulshaw
night watchman in Winthrop Street
Gave evidence 17 September 1888
Editorial summary of the evidence
A night watchman at sewer works in Winthrop Street, about thirty yards in a straight line from the spot, Mulshaw heard no cries or noise but admitted he sometimes dozed, provoking laughter with: 'It is thirteen long hours for 3s and find your own coke.'
Verbatim report: The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2
Historical text, verbatim:
Alfred Malshaw [Mulshaw], a night watchman in Winthorpe-street, had also heard no cries or noise. He admitted that he sometimes dozed.
The Coroner: I suppose your watching is not up to much?
The Witness: I don't know. It is thirteen long hours for 3s and find your own coke. (Laughter.)
By the Jury: In a straight line I was about thirty yards from the spot where the deceased was found.
Casebook transcription: Mary Ann 'Polly' Nichols inquest, day 3 (17 September 1888), from The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2 · Inquest day 3 (sitting of 17 September 1888); The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2 · Transcription Also recorded as: reported as Alfred; Malshaw
PC John Thain (96J)
police constable on the adjacent beat, signalled by Neil
Gave evidence 17 September 1888
Editorial summary of the evidence
Thain's beat passed the Brady Street end of Buck's Row every thirty minutes; at 3.45 a.m. he was signalled by the flash of Neil's lantern, found Neil with the body and was sent for the doctor. He later searched the wharf and nearby railway lines and found nothing suspicious, and denied telling the slaughtermen a murder had been committed when he went to collect his cape.
Verbatim report: The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2
Historical text, verbatim:
Police-constable John Thail [Thain] stated that the nearest point on his beat to Buck's- row was Brady-street. He passed the end every thirty minutes on the Thursday night, and nothing attracted his attention until 3.45 a.m., when he was signalled by the flash of the lantern of another constable (Neale). He went to him, and found Neale standing by the body of the deceased, and witness was despatched for a doctor. About ten minutes after he had fetched the surgeon he saw two workmen standing with Neale. He did not know who they were. The body was taken to the mortuary, and witnessed remained on the spot. Witness searched Essex Wharf, the Great Eastern Railway arches, the East London Railway line, and the District Railway as far as Thames-street, and detected no marks of blood or anything of a suspicious character.
By the Jury: When I went to the horse-slaughterer's for my cape I did not say that I was going to fetch a doctor, as a murder had been committed. Another constable had taken my cape there.
By the Coroner: There were one or two working men going down Brady-street shortly before I was called by Neale.
Casebook transcription: Mary Ann 'Polly' Nichols inquest, day 3 (17 September 1888), from The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2 · Inquest day 3 (sitting of 17 September 1888); The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2 · Transcription Also recorded as: Thail; Thane; PC 96J
Robert Paul
carman who, with Cross, examined the body before the police
Gave evidence 17 September 1888
Editorial summary of the evidence
A carman on his way to Corbett's Court, Paul testified that a man standing in Buck's Row touched his shoulder and asked him to look at the woman. He felt her cold hands and face, helped pull her clothes down, and thought he detected 'a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint'; the two men then went to find a policeman, not more than four minutes after first seeing her. The Times version adds that he left home at about 3.45 a.m.
Verbatim report: The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2
Historical text, verbatim:
Robert Baul [Paul], 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway. He felt her hands and face, and they were cold. The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint. The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman. Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman. Before he reached Buck's-row he had seen no one running away.
Casebook transcription: Mary Ann 'Polly' Nichols inquest, day 3 (17 September 1888), from The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2 · Inquest day 3 (sitting of 17 September 1888); The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2 · Transcription Also reported elsewhere. Compare the wording:
Verbatim report: Casebook transcription: The Times, 18 September 1888
Historical text, verbatim:
Robert Baul [Paul], a carman, of 30, Foster-street, Whitechapel, stated he went to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields. He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning and as he was passing up Buck's-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness approached him he walked towards the pavement, and witness stepped on to the roadway in order to pass him. He then touched witness on the shoulder, and said, "Come and look at this woman here." Witness went with him, and saw a woman lying right across the gateway. Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach. Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead. It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood. They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met. He could not see whether the clothes were torn, and did not feel any other part of her body except the hands and face. They looked to see if there was a constable, but one was not to be seen. While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement. By the CORONER. - The morning was rather a chilly one. Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen. Up to that time not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he saw the body. He had not met any one before he reached Buck's-row, and did not see any one running away.
Casebook transcription: The Times, 18 September 1888 · The Times, 18 September 1888 (reported as 'Baul [Paul]') · Transcription Also recorded as: Robert Baul; Robert Baul (DT)
Robert Mann
pauper inmate and keeper of the Whitechapel workhouse mortuary
Gave evidence 17 September 1888
Editorial summary of the evidence
A pauper inmate of the Whitechapel workhouse in charge of the mortuary, Mann locked up the body at about 5 a.m. and after breakfast undressed it with James Hatfield, with no police present and no instruction not to touch it. He could not say where the blood was; the coroner remarked that he was subject to fits and his statements were unreliable.
Verbatim report: The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2
Historical text, verbatim:
Robert Mann, the keeper of the mortuary, said the police came to the workhouse, of which he was an inmate. He went, in consequence, to the mortuary at five a.m. He saw the body placed there, and then locked the place up and kept the keys. After breakfast witness and Hatfield, another inmate of the workhouse, undressed the woman.
[Coroner] The police were not present? - No; there was no one present. Inspector Helson was not there.
[Coroner] Had you been told not to touch it? - No.
[Coroner] Did you see Inspector Helson? - I can't say.
[Coroner] Was he present? - I can't say.
[Coroner] I suppose you do not recollect whether the clothes were torn? - They were not torn or cut.
[Coroner] You cannot describe where the blood was? - No, sir; I cannot.
[Coroner] How did you get the clothes off? - Hatfield had to cut them down the front.
A Juryman: Was the body undressed in the mortuary or in the yard? - In the mortuary.
The Coroner: It appears the mortuary-keeper is subject to fits, and neither his memory nor statements are reliable.
Casebook transcription: Mary Ann 'Polly' Nichols inquest, day 3 (17 September 1888), from The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2 · Inquest day 3 (sitting of 17 September 1888); The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2 · Transcription James Hatfield
workhouse inmate who undressed the body at the mortuary
Gave evidence 17 September 1888
Editorial summary of the evidence
The second workhouse inmate described undressing the body without instructions to have it 'ready for the doctor', cutting the petticoat bands, tearing the chemise, and later cutting out the 'Lambeth Workhouse' marks for Inspector Helson. He insisted there were no stays, but admitted under a juror's question that his memory was bad.
Verbatim report: The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2
Historical text, verbatim:
James Hatfield, an inmate of the Whitechapel Workhouse, said he accompanied Mann, the last witness, to the mortuary, and undressed the deceased. Inspector Helson was not there.
[Coroner] Who was there? - Only me and my mate.
[Coroner] What did you take off first? - An ulster, which I put aside on the ground. We then took the jacket off, and put it in the same place. The outside dress was loose, and we did not cut it. The bands of the petticoats were cut, and I then tore them down with my hand. I tore the chemise down the front. There were no stays.
[Coroner] Who gave you instructions to do all this? - No one gave us any. We did it to have the body ready for the doctor.
[Coroner] Who told you a doctor was coming? - I heard someone speak about it.
[Coroner] Was any one present whilst you were undressing the body? - Not as I was aware of.
[Coroner] Having finished, did you make the post-mortem examination? - No, the police came.
[Coroner] Oh, it was not necessary for you to go on with it! The police came? - Yes, they examined the petticoats, and found the words "Lambeth Workhouse" on the bands.
[Coroner] It was cut out? - I cut it out.
[Coroner] Who told you to do it? - Inspector Helson.
[Coroner] Is that the first time you saw Inspector Helson on that morning? - Yes; I arrived at about half-past six.
[Coroner] Would you be surprised to find that there were stays? - No.
[Coroner] A juryman: Did not you try the stays on in the afternoon to show me how short they were. - I forgot it.
The Coroner: He admits that his memory is bad.
Witness: Yes.
Casebook transcription: Mary Ann 'Polly' Nichols inquest, day 3 (17 September 1888), from The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2 · Inquest day 3 (sitting of 17 September 1888); The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888, p. 2 · Transcription
The coroner's summing-up (excerpt)
Historical text, verbatim:The Coroner then summed up. Having reviewed the career of the deceased from the time she left her husband, and reminded the jury of the irregular life she had led for the last two years, Mr. Baxter proceeded to point out that the unfortunate woman was last seen alive at half-past two o'clock on Saturday morning, Sept 1, by Mrs. Holland, who knew her well. Deceased was at that time much the worse for drink, and was endeavouring to walk eastward down Whitechapel. What her exact movements were after this it was impossible to say; but in less than an hour and a quarter her dead body was discovered at a spot rather under three-quarters of a mile distant. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data. The condition of the body appeared to prove conclusively that the deceased was killed on the exact spot in which she was found. There was not a trace of blood anywhere, except at the spot where her neck was lying, this circumstance being sufficient to justify the assumption that the injuries to the throat were committed when the woman was on the ground, whilst the state of her clothing and the absence of any blood about her legs suggested that the abdominal injuries were inflicted whilst she was still in the same position. Coming to a consideration of the perpetrator of the murder, the Coroner said: It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection, for there must surely have been marks of blood about his person. If, however, blood was principally on his hands, the presence of so many slaughter-houses in the neighbourhood would make the frequenters of this spot familiar with blood- stained clothes and hands, and his appearance might in that way have failed to attract attention while he passed from Buck's-row in the twilight into Whitechapel-road, and was lost sight of in the morning's market traffic. We cannot altogether leave unnoticed the fact that the death that you have been investigating is one of four presenting many points of similarity, all of which have occurred within the space of about five months, and all within a very short distance of the place where we are sitting. All four victims were women of middle age, all were married, and had lived apart from their husbands in consequence of intemperate habits, and were at the time of their death leading an irregular life, and eking out a miserable and precarious existence in common lodging-houses. In each case there were abdominal as well as other injuries. In each case the injuries were inflicted after midnight, and in places of public resort, where it would appear impossible but that almost immediate detection should follow the crime, and in each case the inhuman and dastardly criminals are at large in society. Emma Elizabeth Smith, who received her injuries in Osborn-street on the early morning of Easter Tuesday, April 3, survived in the London Hospital for upwards of twenty-four hours, and was able to state that she had been followed by some men, robbed and mutilated, and even to describe imperfectly one of them. Martha Tabram was found at three a.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 7, on the first floor landing of George-yard-buildings, Wentworth-street, with thirty-nine punctured wounds on her body. In addition to these, and the case under your consideration, there is the case of Annie Chapman, still in the hands of another jury. The instruments used in the two earlier cases are dissimilar. In the first it was a blunt instrument, such as a walking-stick; in the second, some of the wounds were thought to have been made by a dagger; but in the two recent cases the instruments suggested by the medical witnesses are not so different. Dr.
[...]