Best Selling author Richard Jones presents his original

mystery face

A great deal of speculation has surrounded a recent Channel 5 programme which purported to show the face of Jack the Ripper. Experts, so the program claimed, had examined 13 statements taken from witnesses who may have seen Jack the Ripper with his victims shortly before their bodies were discovered and had come up with an image of the the face of Jack the Ripper. Laura Richards, head of analysis at Scotland Yard’s violent crime unit, which conducted the study, said: ‘For the first time, we are able to understand the kind of person Jack the Ripper was. We can name the street where lived, what he looked like and we can explain, finally, why he eluded justice.’ The experts included former Metropolitan Police Commander John Grieve (the same John Grieve it should be said who told Patricia Cornwall that Walter Sickert, the artist, was an “interesting chap you might want to check out.”)

Speaking of the results Commander Grieve was quoted as claiming ‘This is further than anyone else has got. It would have been enough for coppers to get out and start knocking on doors. They would have got him.’ Ms. Richard’s meanwhile suggested the Ripper was ‘frighteningly normal, yet capable of extraordinary cruelty’. A little bit of stating the obvious creeps in to this last comment, whilst Commander Grieves’ observation about “coppers knocking on doors” belittles the vast effort that his Victorian counterparts invested in their hunt for the killer. Inspector Abberline put in so many hours trudging the streets and following up leads that he came close to a breakdown. In the wake of the so-called ‘double event’ on the 30th September 1888, when Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were murdered within an hour of each other, the Victorian Police launched door-to-door enquiries in the neighbourhood and interviewed in the region of 2,000 residents of the district’s Common Lodging Houses. In addition they distributed 80,000 handbills which read: -

Police Notice.-To the Occupier,- On the mornings of Friday, 31st August, Saturday, 8th, and Sunday, 30th Sept., 1888, women were murdered in Whitechapel, it is supposed by some one residing in the immediate neighbourhood. Should you know of any person to whom suspicion is attached, you are earnestly requested to communicate at once with the nearest police-station.-Metropolitan Police Office, 30th Sept., 1888.closequote

On October 4th 1888 the Daily News revealed to its readers the prevalent belief amongst the Metropolitan Police detectives that the killer was indeed someone who lived in the area.

There is a very general belief among the local detective force in the East-end that the murderer or murderers are lurking in some of the dangerous dens of the low slums, in close proximity to the scenes of the murders. Among other circumstances which support this theory is that some of the houses supposed to be bolted up for the night are found to have secret strings attached to the bolts, so that the house can be entered by persons who are acquainted with these secrets without delay or noise…Even the cellars in some of the slums are stated to be occupied for sleeping purposes by strange characters who only appear in the streets at night. These dilapidated hovels are unfit for human habitation, and are known to the police to be the hiding places of the most dangerous and desperate characters. The police, it is stated, are contemplating a series of immediate and sudden raids upon these dreadful dens, both in the City and Whitechapel.closequote

On the 13th October 1888 the police did indeed begin their “series of sudden raids” and spent a week entering every room in every house in some of the area’s worst slums. They looked in cupboards, searched under beds and examined every knife they came across. But still the Ripper eluded them.

The major problem the police were up against was that the killer was simply leaving no clues behind and so they had virtually nothing to go on. As Dr. Robert Anderson, the head of the Criminal Investigation Department and Assistant Commissioner put it:

That a crime of this kind should have been committed without any clue being supplied by the criminal, is unusual, but that five successive murders should have been committed without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime.closequote

This was a point made by The Times in an article on 10th November 1888. By this time the killer had struck again and had carried out his most gruesome crime of all, the murder of Mary Kelly in Miller’s Court off Dorset Street. The police again found themselves conducting door to door enquiries and were once more hampered by the sheer number of residents whom they were required to interview. Sergeant William Thick explained to one journalist that each of the Common Lodging Houses in Dorset Street accommodated between 260 and 300 people! But, as the Times explained to its readers:-

The simple truth is, that as long as this murderer, whether he be maniac or not, is cool enough to leave no clue behind him; and as long as he confines his operations to women who make themselves accessories to his escape, his crimes may continue. Unless there were a policeman, not merely in every street, but in every house in Whitechapel, it is impossible to secure the safety against the “monster” of such women as yesterday’s victim. The best hope would be that the scare should at length have gone far enough to prevent these poor creatures taking unknown strangers into dark corners or empty rooms. Then the criminal, rendered desperate by his thirst for blood, may do something which will secure his detection. But as long as these Whitechapel women offer themselves to the slaughterer, and the slaughterer does not lose his head, it is unjust to blame the police for failing to protect them.closequote

However, on the Monday night after Mary Kelly’s murder, a witness walked into an East End Police Station. His name was George Hutchinson and he lived at the Victoria Home on Commercial Street, a short distance from Miller’s Court. His statement as taken down by Inspector Abberline is here reproduced in full:

About 2:00 a.m. on the 9th I was coming by Thrawl Street, Commercial Street and just before I got to Flower and Dean Street I met the murdered woman Kelly and she said to me: “Hutchinson, will you lend me sixpence?” I said: “I can’t. I have spent all my money going down to Romford”. She said: “Good morning, I must go and find some money. She went away to Thrawl Street. A man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly (i.e. from Aldgate) tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her. They both burst out laughing. I heard her say: “All right” to him and the man said: “You will be alright for what I have told you”. He then placed his right hand around her shoulder. He also had a kind of small parcel in his left hand with a kind of strap around it. I stood against the lamp of the Queen’s Head Public House and watched him. They both came past me and the man hung his head down with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face. He looked at me stern. They both went into Dorset Street. I followed them. They both stood on the corner of the court for about three minutes. He said something to her. She said: “All right, my dear. Come along. You will be comfortable”. He then placed his arm on her shoulder and she gave him a kiss. She said she had lost her handkerchief. He then pulled out his handkerchief, a red one, and gave it to her. They both went up the court together. I went to the court to see if I could see them, but I could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out. They did not, so I went away.closequote

Hutchinson then proceeded to give a description of the man which went into an incredible amount of detail:

Age about thirty four or thirty five; height five feet six inches; complexion pale; dark eyes and eyelashes; slight moustache curled up at each end and hair dark; very surly looking; dress – long dark coat; collar and cuffs trimmed with astrakhan and a dark jacket underneath; light waistcoat; dark trousers; dark felt hat turned down in the middle; button boots and gaiters with white buttons: wore a very thick gold chain with linen collar; black tie with horseshoe pin; respectable appearance; walked very sharp; Jewish appearance.’closequote

Inspector Abberline took Hutchinson’s statement very seriously indeed and even assigned him two detectives who spent two days escorting him around the area in the hope that he might see the man again and identify him. Today Hutchinson’s statement arouses a great deal of debate. Many argue that it is just too good to be true – and when compared to other descriptions given by potential witnesses the detail of Hutchinson’s really does stand out. Consequently there is a tendency to dismiss his statement as not true. The problem with dismissing him outright is that Inspector Abberline, and experienced and intelligent detective believed it. So Hutchinson must remain one of the many mysteries surrounding a case that is littered with such inconsistencies.

However, there were other witnesses who claimed to have seen Jack the Ripper with his victims and it was these that the experts used to build their image of the face of Jack the Ripper.

The Witnesses

Murder Victim: Mary Nichols

Date of murder: August 31st 1888

Photofit

Hover over the image to judge the resemblance to this description

The following statements are witness descriptions regarding Mary Nichols the first victim of Jack The Ripper.

Patrick Mulshaw

The first such witness was Patrick Mulshaw, a night watchman, who was working at a sewage works, close to the spot where Mary Nichols was murdered on August 31st 1888. Around twenty minutes to five O’clock (an hour after the body had been discovered) a passing stranger had told him, “Watchman, old man, I believe somebody is murdered down the street,” Mulshaw immediately went round to Buck’s Row to join the onlookers who had started to gather at the site. According to Mulshaw the man’s appearance was “suspicious.” The police appear to have made attempts to trace Mulshaw’s mystery informant but their enquiries proved unsuccessful.

 

Murder Victim: Annie Chapman

Date of murder: September 8th 1888

Photofit

Hover over the image to judge the resemblance to this description

The following statements are witness descriptions regarding Annie Chapman the second victim of Jack The Ripper.

Unconfirmed sighting in the press

A week later on 8th September 1888 the body of Annie Chapman was discovered in the back yard of number 29 Hanbury Street. There were unconfirmed newspaper reports that Annie Chapman had been drinking in the Ten Bells pub, at the junction of Commercial Street and Church Street (today’s Fournier Street), at around 5am, when a man in a “little skull cap” popped his head round the door and called her out. The veracity of this sighting is difficult if not impossible to ascertain.

Police Description

On the 10th September The Telegraph informed its readers that:-

At eight o’clock last night the Scotland-yard authorities had come to a definite conclusion as to the description of the murderer of two, at least, of the hapless women found dead at the East-end, and the following is the official telegram despatched to every station throughout the metropolis and suburbs: “Commercial-street, 8.20 p.m. – Description of a man wanted, who entered a passage of the house at which the murder was committed with a prostitute, at two a.m. the 8th. Aged thirty-seven, height 5 ft. 7 in., rather dark, beard and moustache; dress, short dark jacket, dark vest and trousers, black scarf and black felt hat; spoke with a foreign accent.closequote

This mystery man has been the subject of some confusion in Ripper circles over the years. Of course in order to track down the man it is necessary to track down the prostitute with whom he entered the passage of “the house at which the murder was committed.” According to the Daily News on 11th September 1888 the woman’s name was Emily Walton (also referred to as Emily Walters) who had been given “two brass medals, or bright farthings,” by a man who had tried to pass them off “as half sovereigns when in a yard of one of the houses in Hanbury street at 2 a.m. on Saturday morning, and who then began to ill use the woman.” Some commentators, however, have doubted the existence of Emily Walters/Walton and it has even been suggested that she might have been a press invention. By 19th October 1888 when Chief Inspector Swanson reviewed the facts concerning the murder of Annie Chapman, was speaking of only one witness and Emily Walters/Walton had been all but forgotten.

Elizabeth Long

The one description recorded by Swanson was that of Mrs. Elizabeth Long who at 5.30am on 8th September had been walking along Hanbury Street when she saw a man and a woman chatting on the pavement outside number 29. Since the body of Annie Chapman was found thirty minutes later in the back yard of number 29 Hanbury Street, and since Mrs. Long later identified Annie Chapman’s body as being the woman she had seen, her statement was taken seriously. She hadn’t seen the man’s face, only his back, but she described him as being of foreign appearance with a dark complexion. He was of shabby genteel appearance, aged about forty, and not much more than five foot in height. He had on a dark overcoat, and wore a brown deerstalker hat. Since the woman was facing her, she saw more of her and, when taken to see Annie Chapman’s body at the mortuary, was certain she was the woman. Mrs. Long later told the inquest that the couple, “…were talking pretty loudly…” and so she overheard the man say in a foreign accent, “Will you?” To which the woman replied, “Yes.” But since, as she later told the Coroner, it was quite common for her to see couples “standing there in the morning,” Mrs. Long found nothing suspicious about them and continued on her way.

 

Murder Victim: Elizabeth Stride

Date of murder: September 30th 1888

Photofit

Hover over the image to judge the resemblance to this description

The following statements are witness descriptions regarding Elizabeth Stride the third victim of Jack The Ripper.

The 30th September was the morning when Elizabeth Stride was murdered in Berner Street and Catherine Eddowes was murdered in Mitre Square in the City of London. A surprising number of witnesses may have seen Elizabeth Stride with her murderer.

J. Best and John Gardner

It was raining heavily on the night of September 29th 1888 and at 11pm J. Best and John Gardner were certain that they saw Elizabeth Stride sheltering in the doorway of the Bricklayer’s Arms on Settles Street. She was in the company of a man who was about 5′ 5 inches tall. He had a black moustache, sandy eyelashes and was wearing a black morning suit together with a billycock hat. According to Best “…they did not appear willing to go out. He was hugging and kissing her, and as he seemed a respectably dressed man, we were rather astonished at the way he was going on with the woman.” The two men couldn’t resist a little light-hearted banter at the couple’s expense and remarked to the woman “Watch out, that’s Leather Apron getting round you!” Embarrassed by the chaffing the couple “went off like a shot” and best and Gardner watched them hurry off through the rain towards Commercial Road.

William Marshall

At around 11.45pm, William Marshall, a labourer who lived at number 64 Berner Street was standing outside his lodgings, when he noticed a man and woman outside number 63. They both seemed quite sober, and as he watched them began to kiss. Marshall heard the man remark to the woman, “You would say anything but your prayers.” The couple then moved off heading in the direction of Dutfield’s Yard. Marshall described the man as being middle aged and stout, and had the appearance of a clerk. He was around 5 feet 6 inches tall clean shaven, and respectably dressed. He wore a Small, black, cutaway coat, dark trousers, and a round cap with a small sailor-like peak.

Matthew Packer

Matthew Packer, a greengrocer who lived at and traded from number 44 Berner Street, two doors to the south of the International Working Men’s Educational Club. An Evening News reporter politely described him as a respectable and hardworking person who was “a little past the prime of life.” At 9am on the 30th September, Sergeant Stephen White called on Packer in the course of his door to door enquiries in the wake of Liz Stride’s murder. Packer was adamant that both he and his wife had neither seen nor heard anything untoward during the night. Two days later, Packer was visited by Grand and Batchelor, two private detectives employed by the Evening News and the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee. He had, it seems, remembered an important detail that had somehow slipped his mind when White had called a few days before. He told the two private detectives that he had sold grapes to a man and a woman from his shop window at around 11.45pm on the night of the murder. The man, he said, was aged about thirty five, was around 5 feet 7 inches tall, and was of stout square-build. He wore a wide-awake hat, dark clothes and had a clerkly appearance, or as Packer put it when expanding on his story to an Evening News reporter “…I am certain that he wasn’t what I should call a working man or anything like us folks that live around here.” Packer recalled how the man had asked him, ‘I say, old man, how do you sell your grapes?’ ‘Sixpence a pound the black ‘uns, sir, and fourpence a pound the white ‘uns,’ was Packer’s response. Turning to the woman, the man asked, ‘Which will you have, my dear, black or white? You shall have whichever you ‘like best.’ The woman chose the black ones. Packer insisted that the couple had loitered in the street for more than half an hour and that he had watched them eating the grapes in the rain. By 12.15am the couple had moved across the road to stand in front of the Berner Street Club where they stood listening to the singing. After that Packer, who had begun shutting up shop for the night, lost sight of them.

PC William Smith

At 12.30am PC William Smith proceeded along Berner Street on his beat and noticed a man and a woman on the opposite side of the road to Dutfield’s Yard, where Elizabeth Stride’s body was later discovered. The man was approximately 28 years old, with a dark complexion and a small dark moustache. He was about five foot seven inches tall, had on a dark overcoat, a hard, felt, deerstalker, dark hat, and ark clothing. The woman, whom Smith later identified as Elizabeth Stride, had a flower pinned to her jacket. However, the couple were doing nothing to arouse Smith’s suspicions, so he continued on his beat keeping ahead onto Commercial Road.

James Brown

The next witness was James Brown, a dock labourer who lived in Fairclough Street, a turning of Berner Street. At the subsequent inquest in to Elizabeth Stride’s death he told the Coroner’s Court that he had “seen the body in the mortuary. I did not know deceased, but I saw her about a quarter to one on Sunday morning last.” He was, he testified “going from my house to the chandler’s shop at the corner of the Berner-street and Fairclough-street, to get some supper. I stayed there three or four minutes, and then went back home, when I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of the Board School. I was in the road just by the kerb, and they were near the wall. “The man ‘was standing with his arm against the wall; she was inclined towards his arm, facing him, and with her back to the wall.’” According to Brown the man was wearing a long dark overcoat. He was 5ft. 7inches tall. Some newspaper reports had Brown saying that the man’s build was average, whereas the Times reported him as testifying that the man was of “stoutish build.” Brown continued home and fifteen or so minutes later he heard cries of “Murder” as the body of Elizabeth Stride was discovered.

Israel Schwartz

The most important witness to have seen Elizabeth Stride, in the 30 minutes before her body was discovered in Dutfield’s Yard, was a Hungarian Jew by the name of Israel Swcharz. He turned into Berner Street at around 12.45am and noticed a man walking ahead of him. The man stopped to talk to a woman who was standing in the gateway of Dutfield’s Yard. Later, Schwartz was emphatic that the woman had seen was Elizabeth Stride. Since it is likely that Israel Schwartz witnessed the early stages of Elizabeth Stride’s murder, and is therefore possibly the only person ever to have seen one of Jack the Ripper’s victims in the act of being murdered, his statement is worth close scrutiny, albeit he spoke no English, and therefore gave his evidence through an interpreter. It is also worth noting that his statement to the police, and interviews he subsequently gave to journalists, do differ in certain details. However, the police do seem to have taken him very seriously as a witness.

According to Scwharz, the man was about 5 feet, 5 inches tall, aged around 30 with dark hair, a fair complexion, a small brown moustache. He had a full face, broad shoulders and appeared to be slightly intoxicated. As Schwartz watched, the man tried to pull the woman into the street, but then spun her around, and threw her onto the footway, whereupon the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. Israel Schwartz appears to have believed that he was witnessing a domestic attack, and so crossed the road to avoid getting involved. As he did so, he saw a second man standing, lighting his pipe. As Schwartz passed him, the man who was attacking the woman called out, apparently to this second man, the word ‘Lipski,’ at which point the second man began to follow him. Schwartz panicked and began to run, and had managed to lose his apparent pursuer by the time he reached the nearby railway arch. This second man, Schwartz said, was aged about 35, around 5feet, 11 inches tall, had a fresh complexion, light brown hair, a brown moustache, and wore a dark overcoat with an old, black, hard felt hat. The presence of the second man is something of a mystery. It has suggested to some that the killer had an accomplice. However, the evidence seems to suggest that the police traced the second man, and eliminated him as a suspect. Indeed in a report, dated the 19th of October 1888, Chief Inspector Swanson wrote that ‘the police apparently do not suspect the second man,’ although we do not know why this should be.

For two such violent attacks to have taken place on the same woman in the same gateway in the space of 15 minutes is too much of a coincidence, so there is a high probability that the man that Schwartz saw was the murderer of Elizabeth stride.

Uncorroborated Press Report

On the 1st October, the Star newspaper carried the following tantalising report:-

From two different sources we have the story that a man when passing through Church-lane at about half-past one, saw a man sitting on a door-step and wiping his hands. As every one is on the look out for the murderer the man looked at the stranger with a certain amount of suspicion, whereupon he tried to conceal his face. He is described as a man who wore a short jacket and a sailor’s hat.closequote

The man’s jacket and sailor’s hat are certainly similar to the clothing worn by the men or man seen with Stride by PC Marshall and Israel Schwartz. There is also a similarity to the clothing and appearance of the man seen by Joseph Lawende outside Mitre Square. Unfortunately the report is uncorroborated, and there is no mention of the sighting in police records, or at least if there was no record of it has survived.

 

Murder Victim: Catherine Eddowes

Date of murder: September 30th 1888

Photofit

Hover over the image to judge the resemblance to this description

The following statements are witness descriptions regarding Catherine Eddowes the fourth victim of Jack The Ripper.

Jospeh Lawende

At 1.30am on 30th September 1888 three Jewish gentlemen, Harry Harris, Joseph Hyam Levy and Joseph Lawende left the Imperial Club on Duke Street in the City of London. As they passed its junction with Church Passage, they noticed a man and woman talking quietly together. The woman had her back to them, but they could see that her hand was resting on the man’s chest. Levy was immediately convinced that the couple were up to no good, and announced brusquely “I don’t like going home by myself when I see these sorts of characters about” In his hurry to get away he paid the couple scant attention and was unable to furnish a description of either of them, although he did say that the man may have been three or so inches taller than the woman.

Jospeh Lawende, however, was a little less disgusted and a little more observant. Although he hadn’t seen the woman’s face, he was almost certain that her clothing was that worn by Catharine Eddowes, when he was later shown it at the police station. Although the street lighting wasn’t particularly good, he caught a brief glimpse of the man’s face and was able to provide police with a description. He had the appearance of a sailor and was aged about 30. He was around 5 feet 9 inches tall, of medium build. He had a fair complexion, and a small fair moustache. He sported a reddish neckerchief, tied in a knot; wore a pepper-and-salt coloured, loose fitting jacket, and had on a grey, peaked, cloth cap. However, it should be noted that Lawende obtained only a quick glimpse of the man as he passed by, and since the couple were doing nothing particularly suspicious, he later maintained that he would not be able to recognize or identify the man were he to see him again.

Uncorroborated Press Report

The Telegraph reported in an article on 12th October 1888 how at the inquest in to Catherine Eddowes death “…reference was made…to a man, rough and shabby” with a peaked cloth cap, who was observed by two witnesses at the corner of Church-passage at twenty-five minutes to two a.m. on Sunday, Sept. 30, but details were, at the request of Mr. Crawford, the City Solicitor, not pressed for.

James Blenkingsop

According to a brief report in the Star newspaper on 1st October James Blenkingsop was working as a watchman in St James’s Place, a thoroughfare that stood adjacent to Mitre Square. At 1.30am a respectably dressed man approached him and asked “Have you seen a man and woman go through here?” Blenkingsop replied told the man that he had seen some people pass but had paid them scant attention. Given the proximity in both time and place to the murder of Catherine Eddowes it seems inevitable that the police would have followed this report up. It seems that the police eliminated the man seen by Blenkingsop, although the destruction of the City Police records during the war leaves us not knowing why this should have been. Significantly, however, he was not called as a witness at the subsequent inquest.

 

Murder Victim: Mary Kelly

Date of murder: November 9th 1888

Photofit

Hover over the image to judge the resemblance to this description

The following statements are witness descriptions regarding Mary Kelly the fifth victim of Jack The Ripper.

Mary Kelly is perhaps the most enigmatic of Jack the Ripper’s victims and very little is known of her life before she came to Whitechapel. Yet, as with Elizabeth Stride, a surprising number of people claimed to have seen her in the hours leading up to her murder and some of those witnesses may well have seen her with her killer.

Mary Anne Cox

Mary Anne Cox was described in her police statement, made on the 9th November, as being “a widow and an unfortunate.” She lived at number 5 Miller’s Court, and “unfortunate” was a quaint Victorian euphemism for prostitute, judging by Mrs. Cox’s comings and goings throughout the night it is apparent from reading between the lines that she went out soliciting several times in the course of the night. Returning to Dorset Street between 11.45pm and midnight, she saw Mary Jane (the name by which she apparently knew Kelly) walking ahead of her in the company of a man who was carrying a quart can of beer. As Mrs Cox turned into the Court Mary and the man were entering Kelly’s room. Mrs Cox called out “good night Mary Jane,” but Kelly, who was “very drunk,” could scarcely answer, although she did manage to say “good night.” The man was aged about 36, was 5 feet 5 inches tall, he had a fresh complexion and, so she thought, a blotchy face. He had side whiskers, a thick carroty moustache, was dressed in shabby dark clothes, dark overcoat and black felt hat.

Sarah Lewis

At around 2.30a.m, Sarah Lewis, a laundress of 24 Great Pearl Street, passed Christchurch, and looked up at the clock. She had argued with her husband and had decided to spend the rest of the night with her friend Mrs. Keyler and her husband at number 2 Miller’s Court, a first floor room. According to her police statement, as she approached the court there was a man standing against the lodging house on the opposite side of Dorset Street, although she was unable to describe him. This man may well have been George Hutchinson. Her statement was taken on 9th November – probably in the Keyler’s room, as she later testified that the police wouldn’t let them out until 5.30pm. Evidently over the next few days Sarah Lewis gave a lot of thought to this mystery man and by the time of Mary Kelly’s inquest she was able to go into a little more detail:

He was not tall – but stout – had on a wideawake black hat – I did not notice his clothes – another young man with a woman passed along – The man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out.closequote

Her inquest testimony though is remarkable for another fact that had, apparently, slipped her mind when making her police statement:

About Wednesday night at 8 O’clock I was going along Bethnal Green Road with another female and a Gentleman passed us he turned back and spoke to us, he asked us to follow him, and asked one of us he did not mind which, [to go with him] we refused. He went away, and came back and said if we would follow him he would treat us – he asked us to go down a passage – he had a bag he put it down saying what are you frightened of – he then undid his coat and felt for something and we ran away – He was short, pale faced, with a black small moustache, about forty years of age – the bag he had was about a foot or nine inches long – he had on a round high hat – he had a brownish long overcoat and a short black coat underneath – and pepper and salt trousers. On our running away we did not look after the man – On the Friday morning about half past two when I was coming to Miller’s Court I met the same man with a female – in Commercial Street near Mr Ringers Public House – He had then no overcoat on – but he had the bag and the same hat trousers and undercoat.

I passed by them and looked back at the man – I was frightened – I looked again when I got to the corner of Dorset Street. I have not seen the man since I should know him if I did.closequote

In both her police statement and her inquest testimony Sarah Lewis stated that when she arrived at the Keylers room, she sat in a chair and dozed for a while. She woke up at about half past three and, a little before four, heard a female voice shout loudly “Murder!” The sound seemed to come from the direction of Mary Kelly’s room, but since there was only one scream, Sarah Lewis ignored it.

So these are the witnesses who may have seen the face of Jack the Ripper and was from among these that the experts pieced together the face of the murderer, a face that bears an uncanny resemblance to the late Freddie Mercury!