At the end of the first week of September with London still reeling in the wake of the brutal murder of Polly Nichols, the press was speculating about the possible connection of her murder to the earlier slayings of Emma Smith and Martha Tabrum. The panic was to grow deeper following another brutal murder which took place early on the morning of September 8, 1888, the day following Nichols' funeral.
Just before 6 A.M., John Davis got out of bed after what he reported to be a restless night. He went downstairs from his third story flat at 29 Hanbury St. where he had resided with his family for about two weeks. He left intending to go out to the privy. Once outside, he discovered a woman's body lying on her back near the property fence. Her dress had been pulled up over her head, her belly exposed and ripped open, and her intestines were pulled out and draped over her left shoulder.
Within a short time several residents and passersby began gathering. Several of them set out in search of a police officer. One of the men, Henry Holland, approached a police constable who replied that he could not leave his beat. (The area of where the murder occured was near the border to two seperate police jurisdictions, a problem that severly hampered investigative efforts.)
The first policeman to arrive was Inspector Joseph Chandler. He went immediately to the scene in response to seeing two men running along Hanbury Street seeking the aide of the police. He arrived at 6:10 to find the badly mutilated body. According to his report, the woman was lying on her back, left arm upon her left breast, legs drawn up with part of the intestines draped over the left shoulder. Her throat was deeply cut.
Chandler immediately sent for Dr. George Phillips, the Divisional Police Surgeon. He arrived on the scene about 6:30 A.M. Upon searching the yard, he found a small piece of muslin, and a pocket comb laying at her feet. The killer had apparently placed them there. A portion of an envelope containing two pills was found near the head. The body was removed from the location shortly thereafter and Phillips performed the post-mortem examination.
His examination revealed that the throat had been deeply cut and an effort had been made to seperate the bones of the vertebrae with the knife. The post-mortem revealed that some of the intestines had been removed from the body and were absent from the crime scene. Missing were the woman's vagina, uterus and a portion of the bladder. Phillips was later to testify that the murderer possessed at least some knowledge of anatomy. He noted that the wounds were consistant with a large bladed knife 6-8 inches in length. He further concluded that the woman had been dead roughly two hours by the time her body was discovered.
The deceased was listed as 45 years of age, 5 feet tall with wavy dark brown hair and blue eyes. She had a fair complexion, and was identified as Annie Siffey, a.k.a. Annie Chapman.
BACKGROUND
The murdered woman was identified by Amelia Farmer as Annie Chapman who resided at the lodging house at 30 Dorsett St. She had previously been married to a man named either John or George Chapman, who, depending upon whose story you believe was either a veterinary surgeon or a coachman. (John, the coachman is the more likely).The two had seperated about 4 years previously. She continued to receive an allowance from him until his death 18 months prior to her murder. The two apparently parted as the result of her intemperance. Off and on during the previous few months, she had been living with a seive maker, and therefore took the name "Seivey." However, he had apparently abandoned her a few weeks prior to her murder.
The last conclusive sighting of Annie Chapman alive was at 2 A.M., when she was turned away from the boarding house for lack of money to pay for her nightly lodgings. She departed to attempt to earn it. According to the boarding house manager, she was heavily intoxicated, but this observation may have been mistaken. Earlier in the day she reportedly told a friend that she was feeling poorly. The house manager may have mistaken poor health for drunkeness.
At 5:30 A.M. a woman named Elizabeth Long saw a woman she believed to be Chapman talking to a man near 29 Hanbury Street. She reported that the man was tall, wore a deerstalker hat and possibly a dark coat, although she was not certain of the latter detail. The man appeared to be about 40, but she did not clearly see his face. Long did describe the man as being shabby but genteel, and foriegn in appearance.
According to Long, the man was overheard to ask, "Will you?" The woman answered, "Yes." The pair remained there as Long passed by.
This account contradicts the beliefs of Dr. Phillips as to the time of death, if in fact Long was an eyewitness to events just prior to the murder. Further, John Richardson, who also lived at 29 Hanbury, reported at the inquest that he had been outside at around 4:45 A.M., but the body was not present at the time. Either Phillips was errant in his estimation of the time of death (a decidedly imprecise estimate in those days), or two key witnesses were errant in their testimony.
ERRATA
By some accounts, two rings which Chapman had been wearing were also placed at her feet along with the other personal effects found there. This is inaccurate. Chapman was known to wear two rings, but they were not found on or with the body. The murderer may well have removed and kept them (this is a curious bit of evidence, as will be noted in my later discussion of Francis Tumblety). Two farthing coins were found with the body, however police kept the information confidential in hopes that it might help trap the killer.
Another often reported piece of evidence found at the crime scene was a blood stained leather apron. This tied in with contemporary belief that the man nicknamed "Leather Apron," John Pizer, might have been connected with the murder. However, the apron in question belonged to John Richardson, who ran a business out of the boarding house with his mother. She had washed the apron earlier in the week and left it outside to dry. Contrary to often reported accounts, the apron was not stained in blood, but was soaked with water from a leaking pipe nearby. While the apron was taken as evidence by the police initially, the matter was cleared up at the inquest. Further, police had already extensively interviewed Pizer shortly after this murder and were satisfied as to his innocence. He also testified at the inquest.
One witness at the inquest, who was present to identify the body of Annie Chapman, claimed that she had been married to a man named George Chapman. While the account is probably incorrect, a man named George Chapman was arrested later in the poisoning death of women in London. Inspector Abberline believed the man may have been responible for the Ripper murders. The matter is coincidental, and Annie Chapman's husband was probably named John rather than George. In any event, he was not the same man as the convicted poisoner, although this is one of a number of confounding coincidences that foster misinformation in modern investigations of this case.
Be Sure To Visit
Click on banner
Page Links
Introduction
The Murder of Mary Ann Nichols
The Murder of Elizabeth Stride
The Murder of Catherine Eddowes
Doubts About The Double Event
The Murder of Mary Jane Kelly
Evidence
The Prime Suspects
A Royal Conspiracy?
Other Murders
Conclusion
Kex'a Amazing World
