Jack the Ripper: The Hand of a Woman

was strangled before her throat was cut, which author Philip Sugden ( The Complete History of Jack the Ripper ) believed to be the case, or, as seems more likely, the attack was unexpected when it came. Since the victim was a prostitute , one might think she was well used to defending herself against unruly and aggressive clients, and so the reason why she had not fought back was puzzling.
    Detective Constable Daniel Halse, one of the first detectives on the scene, gave orders to search the neighbourhood and to stop and examine every man found on the streets. Proceeding to take an active part in the search, he himself stopped two men in Wentworth Street, but upon answering his questions satisfactorily and displaying no traces of blood, they were quickly released.
    Inspector Collard passed out his orders: all neighbouring streets, alleys and passageways were to be combed inch by inch; houses, lodging houses and tenements were to be entered and searched, and their occupants questioned. Every male, whether in the company of a woman or not, was to be stopped, questioned and searched for traces of blood. Yet, despite all this intense activity, nothing suspicious was found.
    Several police officers were instructed to make enquiries amongst the residents, and search the small cobbled square for clues. Sergeant Jones found three small black buttons, of a type used for women’s boots, in clotted blood near the left side of the victim’s neck. It was always assumed that they belonged to the victim, even though there was no evidence that they did. Furthermore, at the time of her death, the deceased was wearing a pair of men’s laced boots. Jones also found a small metal button in the clotted blood, and a metal thimble – the latter perhaps more closely associated with a woman than a man – near to the right hand. These items were also presumed to have belonged to the victim, although once again, there was nothing substantive to support this view. A small mustard tin found by the left side of the body contained two pawn tickets in the name of Kelly. Further enquiries established that the tin, at least, belonged to the victim, though this discovery led the investigation no further. Inspector Collard searched the pockets of the deceased, but was unable to find either money or any item of value.
    Later on the day of the murder, Dr Brown performed the autopsy at the City Mortuary, while Mr Frederick William Foster, architect and surveyor, made a sketch of the wounds the victim had sustained. Brown confirmed that Eddowes had died after her throat was cut. The injuries to her abdomen, he thought, had been inflicted after death. The abdomen was cut open from the privates to the breasts. The left kidney had been extracted from the body, as had the uterus. Since neither organ could be found despite an intensive and wide-ranging search the police assumed that the murderer had taken them away; the reason why, Inspector Abberline said, was “an unfathomable mystery”. The doctor gave his opinion that the cut had been made by someone in a kneeling position on the right-hand side of the body. The weapon used was thought to be a sharp, pointed knife with a blade at least six inches long. Dr Brown also thought that the killer must have possessed some anatomical knowledge and surgical skill.
    Dr Sequeira’s opinion concurred. He said that the murderer did not appear to possess “great anatomical skill”. He gave his further opinion that while the murderer could have been a qualified surgeon, he might equally have been a “hunter, butcher, slaughter-man or a medical student”. Whichever it might have been, some degree of medical knowledge had certainly been displayed.
    It was a strange case. The murderer had never inflicted facial injuries in any of the previous killings, or carved on them what seemed to be any inverted letters either. But therein lay a clue, though my father and I did not realise it at the time. The victim’s uterus and left kidney were removed which, in Dr Brown’s professional opinion, would be “of no practical use”. This seemed at least to rule out author Tony Williams’s explanation for the removal of the uterus – that it was required for the purpose of Dr John Williams’s research into the cause or causes of infertility. But the reasons why the terrible facial injuries had been inflicted, the inverted Vs carved into each of the victim’s cheeks and her left kidney removed, remained a mystery.
    News of