The Legend of Jack the Ripper

Ch16: Return of the Ripper?!

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...".