Rose Mylett: The Untold Story of a Victorian Death

Table of Contents

The tragic demise of ROSE MYLETT in the bleak winter of 1888 serves as a haunting microcosm of Victorian London’s underbelly; her life, shrouded in mystery and contradictory accounts, stands as a stark reminder of the struggles faced by marginalized women during that era, further complicated by the terrifying spectre of Jack the Ripper. Her story is not just a tale of death, but one of forgotten identities, societal indifference, and the relentless churn of the rumor mill. This article delves into the complex tapestry of her life, a web woven with aliases, disputed causes of death, and the ever-present shadow of a serial killer, attempting to shed light on the woman behind the headlines and offer a nuanced understanding of her experience.

Introduction

The death of Rose Mylett on December 20, 1888, in the impoverished district of Poplar, London, is a chilling tale of a life lived on the fringes, a narrative that continues to raise questions to this day. Her story encapsulates the harsh realities and the social prejudices prevalent in Victorian London and the chaos that the Jack the Ripper murders created. Her case, obscured by misinformation and sensationalism, offers a poignant perspective on the lives of the era’s voiceless. Examining her death today offers us an opportunity to not only solve her murder, even if it was accidental but to give voice to the marginalise people in the Victorian era.

Overview of the Case

The bare facts of Mylett’s death are chillingly simple: her body was discovered in Clarke’s Yard, a desolate alleyway off Poplar High Street, in the early hours of a cold December morning. The immediate aftermath, however, was anything but straightforward. The cause of death became a battleground amongst medical experts, with initial findings suggesting strangulation, whereas later examinations proposed accidental suffocation possibly from her own clothing whilst intoxicated. The circumstances surrounding her death were made more complicated by the ever-present suspicion that she may have been a victim of Jack the Ripper, due to the proximity of the murder locations and it happening at the height of the infamous Whitechapel killings. Furthermore, the identity of the victim was shrouded in confusion as she was known by numerous aliases. This resulted in a series of contradictions, not just in the medical accounts, but her life accounts as well. This highlights an important issue, there’s no true record of her life, and it was as though she was only relevant in death.

Importance of Context

To fully comprehend the tragedy of Mylett’s demise, it’s crucial to consider the turbulent social landscape of late 19th century London. Whitechapel was a hub of poverty and desperation, where large numbers of immigrant families, particularly Irish families, struggled to find their place in the new world. Prostitution was rampant, fuelled by economic hardship and a lack of opportunities for women. It was a time of intense social inequality and rampant discrimination where the lives of those in the poverty-stricken areas was almost invisible. When the body of ROSE MYLETT was discovered London was terrified by the killings taking place in Whitechapel, each one more brutal than the previous. There was a media frenzy, a state of confusion, in short, anything that seemed to fit the pattern was suspected of being a possible Ripper murder. This environment of fear, uncertainty, and moral outrage directly influenced how Mylett’s death was perceived and investigated, casting an unflattering light on the societal prejudices of that period and highlighting the importance of seeing this case in its historical context.

Background of Rose Mylett

The life of ROSE MYLETT, or Catherine Millett, remains a poignant example of the resilience and challenges faced by women living in the poverty-stricken areas of Victorian London. Her existence, though marked by hardship, also shines a light on the interconnected elements of family, relationships, and survival strategies adopted by many in her position within a difficult socio-economic environment. Her life exemplifies the experiences of countless others who were forced to live a life of hardship and insecurity.

Early Life and Family Background

Born on December 8, 1859, Rose was the daughter of Irish immigrants, Henry and Margaret Mylett. The family’s move from Ireland into the heart of London’s East End speaks of the waves of migration that defined the period. The family was not alone, as the waves of Irish families poured into the area in search of work and safety away from Ireland. Her family, though not directly involved in the public eye of her death, offers a critical insight in the background of her identity. The familial connection with her siblings Mary, William, and John, establishes her place in a network of relationships, that was both a source of support but also a testament of how tough times were during their childhood. Unlike the Ripper victims, she wasn’t just known as a prostitute, her family knew her. She came from a background that was very common to the area, a background of tough economic hardship and it could easily be argued this is one of the core reasons why she ended up working as a prostitute.

Occupation and Lifestyle

Primarily working as a casual prostitute, ROSE MYLETT’s occupation was a necessity of survival rather than a choice. This speaks to the limited opportunities for women who lacked social and economic power in the Victorian era. Her movement between lodging houses in Whitechapel, Spitalfields, Poplar, and Bromley-by-Bow also reveals the transient nature of her life, constantly shifting between temporary accommodations. This lack of stability was not an uncommon element of the lives of many who inhabited London’s East End. The nature of her work made her incredibly vulnerable to abuse, both from the clients she worked for and from the law enforcement who would often target prostitutes. This life makes it incredibly likely she would often be under the influence of alcohol, both for pain relief and to help her deal with the situation. Her lifestyle, though often seen as immoral by those of a more privileged background, was one of necessity and highlighted the difficult choices many faced in order to obtain basic survival needs.

Personal Relationships

Rose had a complex personal life, including a relationship with Thomas Davis from which she had two children, Florence and Henry, though the latter likely died in infancy. At the time of her death, she was living with Benjamin Goodson, a man who appears to have been part of her support network. These relationships, whilst complicated and chaotic, provide further insights on the human element of the case, demonstrating a life that existed beyond her work. These relationships demonstrate she was not simply just a prostitute, but also a mother and partner. These relationship aspects add additional humanisation that is often lost, and remind us she was a real person, and not just a data point in a crime case. Her story is a sad one, she was not a perfect person, but she did not deserve her fate.

The Circumstances of Her Death

The circumstances surrounding ROSE MYLETT’s death are a chilling reflection of the environment in which she lived. Her demise, shrouded in uncertainty and contradictory accounts, serves as a stark reminder of the inherent vulnerabilities faced by those living in Victorian London’s precarious underbelly. Understanding the who, what, when, where, why, and how offers a critical perspective on the events that led to this tragic moment.

Discovery of the Body

At 4:15 AM on December 20, 1888, the bleak and desolate body of ROSE MYLETT was discovered by police officers in Clarke’s Yard, off Poplar High Street. The discovery of her lifeless body marked the beginning of a very complicated investigation. The lack of witness testimony that evening meant that how she got there, and what happened was unclear. The circumstances of the discovery, in the shadows of a quiet corner of London, highlighted the vulnerability that came with late-night travel within the poorest areas of the city, and how dangerous that world could be on the fringes of society. This was not just a tragedy, it was an indictment of the society that ignored such conditions of hardship. The bleakness of the discovery became almost a symbol of how easily life could be taken in the Victorian era, particularly the lives of those who were marginalized.

Location and Time of Death

Clarke’s Yard, a dark and secluded alleyway, provided a stage for the unfolding tragedy. The time of death, in the early hours of the morning, was a time when many of the city’s residents would be asleep or home. The location further highlights the stark reality, these dark alleys were the hunting ground of poverty and crime. The yard itself is not detailed beyond its use in murder, highlighting how the poor are treated as mere data points rather than human beings. This was where ROSE MYLETT’S life ended, alone in the dark of an alleyway, abandoned by society. The combination of location and time only add to the sense of mystery surrounding her demise and how easily a life could just vanish with no one noticing until it was too late.

Initial Police Response

The initial police response was focused on the possibility that Rose could have choked on her own vomit, stemming from the belief that she was intoxicated. This early assumption reflects the biases and moral judgments that often shaped law enforcement’s perceptions of people working in prostitution. The quick conclusion that her death was caused by an accident rather than foul play indicates the limited resources and the lack of interest in helping. It’s also possible that the police’s lack of care and quick conclusion might be because of the Ripper case that was taking up police resources at the time. The police’s desire to quickly clear the case demonstrates a systemic apathy towards those deemed ‘low lives’ which demonstrates the deeper issues of injustice that existed during the Victorian age. The quick conclusion that it was a death resulting from alcohol, highlights the prejudices of the police of the era.

Identity Confusion

The case of ROSE MYLETT is made all the more complex due to the numerous aliases she used throughout her life. The multiple names she used highlight the fragmented existence she had to live due to the oppressive nature that she lived under. Her identity being so loosely tied to names makes accurate historical tracing very difficult. The challenges of verifying her existence demonstrates just how fluid identities were for marginalized people living in Victorian London. She was not unique in the many aliases that she used, it demonstrates how common it was for people to disguise their identity to survive.

Multiple Aliases and Names

Known as “Fair Clara,” Catherine Millett, Alice Downey (or Downe), Elizabeth Davis, and finally Elizabeth Myllett (on her death certificate) she left behind a trail of names, each potentially linked to a different point in her life. The use of multiple and varied names makes it incredibly difficult to accurately document her life or track her movements. This was likely a form of self preservation and an attempt to protect her and her family, particularly her children who most likely used the alias of Davis, the surname she used when she had them. The various names demonstrate how easily people could rewrite their identities during the Victorian era and this made it easier to live within the margins of society. Furthermore, the use of aliases is incredibly common when it comes to women at this time in history, particularly working prostitutes for various reasons, usually linked to avoiding detection.

Implications on Historical Research

The multitude of identities that ROSE MYLETT adopted has serious implications for historical research. Tracing her life becomes incredibly challenging when a single individual lived under various identities. This means that her life may be far more complex and varied than what we can understand through the available documentation. The difficulty in tracking her past demonstrates the limitations of historical records when dealing with marginalized people. It also means that we are always going to be lacking some of that important information and that we will never have a full picture of her life. She is an example of how easily history can lose people as the documents and records are skewed to favour the rich and powerful.

Cause of Death: A Controversial Debate

The debate about the cause of ROSE MYLETT’s death is perhaps one of the most contentious elements of her story. The conflicting medical opinions and the theories that emerged from them only added to the complexities involved. Whether she accidentally suffocated, or was strangled are at the heart of the unanswered questions. This lack of clarity only enhanced the mystery of her death, particularly the possibility that she could have been murdered.

Competing Medical Opinions

Initial medical findings suggested that she had been strangled with a cord, based on a mark located around her neck. This early assessment came from doctors who had carried out an initial examination and supported the hypothesis that ROSE MYLETT was murdered. However, a later examination conducted by a different medical expert contested that theory, suggesting that she had died from accidental suffocation, possibly from being intoxicated and choking on the clothing she was wearing. This divergence of opinion created significant conflict at the inquest and made it very difficult to come to a definitive conclusion. Each doctor brought their own expertise and experience to the conclusion and it shows just how much debate there was in the medical world at this point in time.

Accidental Choking vs. Murder

The difference between death resulting from accidental choking and death by strangulation was of the utmost importance, both legally and from the point of view of public perception. Accidental suffocation meant a tragic accident, whereas murder indicated a dangerous and violent killer. The later examination that proposed Rose had choked on her clothing was at odds with the initial finding that indicated strangulation. The fact that there was such a big difference in opinion highlights the complexities of medical assessment at the time, as well as the pressure that came from making the correct diagnosis, especially while so many cases were taking place at the same time. Furthermore, her case became deeply connected with the public’s views on the Jack the Ripper murders, and the possibility that this may have been another of his victims.

Role of Alcohol in the Discussion

The theory that alcohol may have played a part in her death is important to the case and to how it was presented to the public. There were conflicting witness accounts regarding her sobriety on the night of her death however it appears that she was under the influence, which further complicated the investigation. If she was intoxicated, it could have been a factor leading to her accidental death. Her work as a prostitute would have increased her risk of alcohol abuse, which was common amongst the working poor. The role that alcohol plays in her death is important as it showcases the complexities of her life, a life of hardship and the coping mechanisms she used to survive. The conclusion that it was accidental was made partially due to her lifestyle, implying that she was drunk, and she somehow accidentally suffocated herself.

Connections to Jack the Ripper

The shadows of the infamous Whitechapel Murders loomed large over ROSE MYLETT’s death, leading to considerable speculation about whether she could have been another victim of Jack the Ripper. The timing of her death, in close proximity to other Ripper murders, made it almost impossible to disregard a potential connection. The media played its part by sensationalizing these possible connections adding to the public fear and unease that had taken hold of London.

Timing of the Death

Mylett’s death, occurring at the height of the Jack the Ripper murders, immediately garnered suspicion. The public, already gripped by fear, were quick to draw parallels. The close proximity in time of both events was enough to raise concerns about a link, and this anxiety became incredibly evident during the investigation of her death. It was a time of mass paranoia, even those who were normally rational were open to the theory that another murder might be the work of Jack the Ripper. The timing is key to understanding why this case was so controversial, and why the police were so unwilling to add it to the existing investigation.

Media Speculation and Sensationalism

Newspapers exploited public concern by trying to link the death either directly to the Ripper or as a case from a similar killer. While The Star newspaper did propose that the Poplar Murder and the Whitechapel Murders may be connected, this theory would not come to fruition. The public desperation for the capture of the Whitechapel killer resulted in many theories which caused panic and further speculation within society. Sensationalized media coverage amplified public fear and created an atmosphere of panic within the city, further blurring the line between fact and fiction. The media played a role in enhancing the connection between this case and the Ripper murders, creating a frenzy of concern, each one more imaginative than the previous.

Analysis of the Lacking Mutilations

One of the major arguments against her being a victim of Jack the Ripper was the lack of mutilations that were common in his murders, that were not present on ROSE MYLETT’s body. His killings all featured the mutilation of the victim, this was his method, she didn’t follow this pattern. This absence of this distinguishing factor led most authorities to conclude that Mylett was not a victim of the Ripper. Despite the logical reasoning, public fear did not subside. The failure to find any mutilation on her body meant that she was ultimately excluded from the Ripper investigation, despite the fact her death was still a mystery.

The Inquest Process

The inquest into ROSE MYLETT’s death became a battleground of conflicting opinions and uncertainties. Spearheaded by Coroner Wynne Baxter, the inquest not only investigated the circumstances of her death, but it also opened up divisions between the authorities that were supposed to cooperate. The various witness accounts and the disagreement of medical opinion played heavily on the inquest process resulting in an outcome that was not universally accepted.

Coroner Wynne Baxter’s Role

Coroner Wynne Baxter played a critical role in the inquest, who, unlike the police, was far more inclined to favour the possibility of murder. This demonstrates some of the friction between the coroner and the police as they each had different views on how to proceed. He was a meticulous coroner who insisted on a thorough investigation that demonstrated his seriousness regarding this particular case. The coroner’s willingness to consider all theories, especially the possibility of murder, shows that there was a divergence of opinion despite the police being so sure of their initial conclusion.

Jury Verdict and its Implications

The jury ultimately returned a verdict of murder by person or persons unknown, despite the police’s firm stance on natural or accidental causes having died. The divergence between the jury’s decision and police’s investigation speaks to the conflicting opinions held by the people. The murder verdict, whilst supported by some accounts, raised further questions and doubts from those who opposed this, making the situation very challenging. The jury’s verdict, while offering an official conclusion, did little to address the complexities of the case and the lack of certainty.

Conflicting Testimonies During Inquest

The inquest was riddled with conflicted testimonies, not just from the different medical experts, but also with the witness accounts. The differences in accounts of how drunk she was on the night of her death, and even the details surrounding her last birth gave a huge amount of additional confusion in the inquest. This highlights how subjective memories can be in a high stress situation and demonstrates how challenging it is to find any sense of objectivity amongst the various witness testimonies. The conflicts that took place at the inquest highlight how fractured investigations can become when there are so many unknowns.

Public Reaction and Media Coverage

The public reaction and media coverage surrounding ROSE MYLETT’s death was heightened by the ongoing fear that plagued the city thanks to the Whitechapel murders. The media played an instrumental role in amplifying this fear, whether intentionally or otherwise, through the sensationalisation of the facts surrounding death. The public panic and the media sensationalism are very closely linked, each one feeding off the other as the situation became increasingly dire.

Sensationalism in Reporting

The media, notably newspapers like The Star, were quick to sensationalise Mylett’s death, linking it to Jack the Ripper, even though there was no evidence of this. This sensationalized approach fuelled public panic and added to the confusion surrounding her death. The stories printed at the time were not necessarily accurate, but they did make excellent content and captured the imaginations of the readers. The press thrived on chaos, and in that chaos they could make their money, therefore fact and fiction often merged together for commercial reasons. The media exploitation of tragedy not only obscured the truth, but it further contributed to the fear that was taking over the city.

Public Paranoia and Fear

The reporting of the news, including Mylett’s death, led to widespread public paranoia and fear, which was exacerbated by the Jack the Ripper killings. The fear took hold of the city creating a climate of distrust, and suspicion with many Londoners in fear as they walked the streets at night. The collective fear of the unknown led to the quick acceptance of conspiracy theories in order to help explain something that was otherwise unexplainable. The public’s fear resulted in a desperate search for answers, which often led to further misinformation. The fear of jack the ripper meant many were afraid of every dark alley corner or unusual noise at night.

Impact of Previous Ripper Murders

The impact of the previous Ripper murders on the perception of ROSE MYLETT’s death cannot be understated. Each discovery of a new victim only added to the public’s state of fear, uncertainty and unease. This existing terror coloured the lens with which her death was viewed, leading to the conclusion that she was most likely a Ripper victim despite the lack of physical evidence. This connection, albeit speculative, highlights how public perception can be manipulated by fear, particularly in times of heightened anxiety. The Ripper murders meant that every murder was analysed in the context of that case further blurring the lines between fact and fiction.

The Influence of Class and Gender

The case of ROSE MYLETT provides a sharp insight into the intersectionality of class and gender in Victorian society, underlining the vulnerability of marginalized women in the era. Her experience as a poor, working-class woman highlights the deep-seated discrimination that heavily influenced every single aspect of her life and subsequent death. Her life was a constant struggle, and she was an invisible member of Victorian society, only deemed valid when her body was found discarded in an alley.

Marginality of Women in Victorian Society

Women with little or no economic power had limited opportunities in Victorian society. Women like ROSE MYLETT were pushed into survival strategies, like prostitution, due to socio-economic factors entirely outside of their control. Her case reflects the systemic oppression faced by working-class women who were excluded from societal progress and resources. The patriarchy of the society meant that women were seen by many of the political power holders as less important and, in the case of women working in the street, seen as expendable.

Social Context of Prostitution

Prostitution during the Victorian era was both a necessary evil, and a damning indictment of a societal system that forced women to do that to survive. The social stigmas that came with this, combined with the economic risks, meant these women were even more prone to abuse, crime, and social exclusion. Prostitutes like ROSE MYLETT were seen as easy targets, with little to no protection from law enforcement or wider society. Her case represents not only her personal tragedy, but also the stories of many other women working in the same area as her, and highlights a systemic inequality that resulted in social apathy.

Key Facts Surrounding Rose Mylett

Despite the many uncertainties that plague the case of ROSE MYLETT, certain core facts are very well established. These facts, while not painting the entire picture of her life, provide a timeline and framework of her death, with some certainty that can be built upon. They are a foundation to the investigation and understanding of who she was and what happened to her. These key facts showcase not only the details surrounding her life, but also the challenges that came with the era, and life she lived.

Date of Birth and Age at Death

Born on December 8, 1859, Rose was 29 years old at the time of her death (not 26, as has sometimes been incorrectly stated in documents). Knowing her correct age is an important tool as it adds to the overall historical record and allows the people to place her in context of time. The importance of not giving her the wrong age shows that history should get these facts correct where they can. Her age adds to her experiences, being a woman of 29, with two children, in the height of the Victorian era, her experiences must have been challenging.

Siblings and Family Dynamics

Rose was part of a family including at least three siblings: Mary, William, and John. This understanding of her family provides insights on her familial roots. It also gives context to her life and the experiences that led her to her death. Her Irish family highlight the migrant experience and the challenges that came with settling down in Victorian London. Her family were an integral part of her, and whilst we may be unsure as to the level of support she received from them, they give a further dimension to her overall story.

Lodging House Existence

The fact that she moved between lodging houses in Whitechapel, Spitalfields, Poplar, and Bromley-by-Bow demonstrates the lack of stability in her lifestyle. The movement of her locations shows her struggles and the difficult decisions she had to make in order to survive. This constant movement displays the precarious life that she was existing on the fringes of society. Her lodging house locations show the difficulties working poor people had to go through every single day.

Medical Findings and Autopsy Reports

The conflicting medical reports that followed the discovery of ROSE MYLETT’s body created crucial points of contention during the inquest. The initial and subsequent findings showcase the uncertainties and challenges that were present during medical examinations of the era. The two separate medical reports offer very different possibilities for cause of death and created a sense of conflicting interpretations which were all valid reasons for concern.

Initial Findings vs. Subsequent Examination

Dr. Brownfield’s initial examination concluded that there was a “mark caused by a cord drawn tightly around the neck,” from the spine to the left ear, which suggested a four thread cord was used. This was later disputed by Dr. Bond, who proposed that there were no signs of strangulation, indicating that the previous report was incorrect, and her death actually resulted from accidental suffocation, likely from her own clothing. This complete change in findings created considerable confusion and meant that even experienced doctors could draw different conclusions when faced with evidence that was less than perfect. This demonstrates the challenges of the era and further enhances the mystery.

Key Medical Testimonies

The key medical testimonies were significantly different, which meant that a consensus was very difficult to achieve. Dr. Brownfield’s findings about the mark around the neck, contrasted with Dr. Bond’s claim about the lack of secondary signs that further highlights the challenges that were present. These testimonies show how difficult it was to ascertain the truth and resulted in arguments during the inquest. The opposing medical reports reveal that there was not always consensus on how things were. The medical profession was as divided as law enforcement on this particular case.

Law Enforcement Perspectives

The police’s view on ROSE MYLETT’s death was largely in opposition to the verdict reached at the inquest. Their firm belief in natural or accidental causes, shows a lack of care for the life lost, and shows how marginalised women were considered far less important than others. The police force at this time had limited time and resources, and were therefore motivated to conclude the case as quickly as possible, regardless of whether or not it was accurate. This also meant that they were unable to give every case time to conclude and therefore may have made premature conclusions to free up time to focus on more prominent and seemingly important cases.

Police Beliefs Regarding Cause of Death

The head of the police, Dr. Anderson, believed that she died from natural causes or an accident. His firm stance on her death being accidental meant that he was less likely to consider murder as a possible outcome. The police view highlights the systemic bias that was part of the wider society, in which the working poor, particularly women, were not considered worthy of concern or protection. The fact that the police were so quick to conclude it was natural causes despite the evidence, showcases the apathy that occurred within the system.

Analysis of Dr. Anderson’s Statements

Dr. Anderson later wrote about the Poplar case after the fact, “the Poplar case of December 1888, was death from natural causes, and but for the ‘Jack the Ripper’ scare, no one would have thought of suggesting that it was homicide”. These comments reinforce their belief that public fear was the dominant factor in leading to the decision that it was murder, not the facts of the situation. His comments underline the police’s firm stance that she was not a homicide victim, and that the police did not believe it was murder. These statements have been cited for many years as truth from the man in charge of the police force, which is why his opinion had such a strong presence.

The Star Newspaper and Its Theories

The Star newspaper was a key player in the media around ROSE MYLETT’s death and the Jack the Ripper killings. They were unique and did not adhere to the commonly seen views. They played a key role in spreading different theories regarding her death and sought to link her case directly to the Ripper case. These alternative theories offered were often speculative but they fed the growing public fear in the hope of gaining more readers.

Proposed Links Between Killers

The Star Newspaper proposed the theory that the Poplar Murderer and the Whitechapel Murderer were perhaps the same individual, linking her death to the Ripper. They theorized that strangulation may have been a prelude to his more commonly used method that involved the knife. This directly challenged other views and created public speculation and fear amongst the wider population. This idea was not commonly held, but it did create more speculation. The fact that they were creating alternative theories further highlights the media’s desire to make the most of the Jack the Ripper frenzy.

Motivation Behind Media Theories

The motivation behind these theories can be seen through a cynical lens, the news papers were keen to sell papers and were motivated by these, creating a link between the murder of ROSE MYLETT and Jack the Ripper would improve their paper sales. They were not necessarily concerned about the facts, but the story. Media outlets thrived on tragedy and fear and their stories were not always factually accurate. The papers were clearly driven by commercial concerns and this further highlights the dangers of media influence particularly in a time of unprecedented public trauma.

The Rose Mylett Case: A Timeline and Cast of Characters

December 8, 1859: Catherine Mylett is born in London to Margaret (nee Haley) and Henry Mylett.
Around 1880-1883: Catherine Mylett lives with Thomas Davis (possibly as his common-law wife) and has two children: Florence Beatrice (born September 12, 1880) and Henry (born June 29, 1883).
February 1882: Henry Mylett, Catherine’s father, dies.
1883: Florence Beatrice “Florrie” Mylett goes to live with her grandmother Margaret Mylett, and stays for about 4 years.
January 20 – March 14, 1888: Catherine Mylett is last admitted to the Bromley Infirmary, using the alias “Rose”, for an unspecified malady. She had been in and out of the infirmary throughout the 1880s.
Late 1888: Catherine Mylett is cohabiting with a man named Benjamin Goodson at a lodging house at 18 George Street, Spitalfields. She is using various aliases in different areas of the East End.
December 19, 1888, 7:55 PM: Charles Ptolomey sees Catherine Mylett (using the alias ‘Rose’) talking to two sailors near Clarke’s Yard off Poplar High Street. She refuses their advances.
December 20, 1888, 2:30 AM: Alice Graves sees Catherine Mylett (using the alias ‘Rose’), drunk, with two men outside The George pub on Commercial Road.
December 20, 1888, 4:15 AM: Police Sergeant Robert Golding and Constable Thomas Costello find Catherine Mylett’s body in Clarke’s Yard off Poplar High Street.
December 20, 1888: Dr. George James Harris performs a cursory examination and finds no immediate sign of foul play. He pronounces life extinct and orders removal of the body.
December 20, 1888: Curtain T. Chivers, the mortuary keeper discovers a faint mark around the neck.
December 21, 1888: Dr. Matthew Brownfield performs a post-mortem examination, concluding that Catherine Mylett was strangled. The first inquest into the death of Rose Mylett opens at Poplar Town Hall.
December 24, 1888: The Star newspaper publishes an article linking the death to the Whitechapel murders, suggesting that strangulation was the Ripper’s initial method.
December 25, 1888: Head nurse at the Bromley Infirmary verifies that “Rose” was an alias used by Mylett.
January 2, 1889: The inquest into the death of Rose Mylett resumes.
January 7, 1889: Mylett’s funeral is held, attended by her mother Margaret and an unnamed cousin.
January 9, 1889: The inquest concludes with a verdict of “willful murder by person or persons unknown.”
1910: Dr. Robert Anderson publishes his memoirs, maintaining that Rose Mylett died of natural causes, not murder.

Cast of Characters

Catherine Mylett (also known as Rose, Catherine Millett, Kate Mylett, Kate Davis, ‘Drunken Lizzie’ Davis, Elizabeth Davis, Elizabeth Myllett, ‘Fair Alice’ Downey, ‘Fair Clara’, Alice Downey/Downe): The victim. Born December 8, 1859. A casual prostitute who lived in the East End of London. She used multiple aliases.
Margaret Mylett (nee Haley): Catherine’s mother. Born in Ballinclaugh, Ireland. She identified Catherine’s body. She tried to convince Catherine to change her life to no avail.
Henry Mylett: Catherine’s father. Born in Loughton, Ireland. A labourer in a starch factory. He died in 1882.
Mary Mylett: Catherine’s elder sister.
William Mylett: Catherine’s elder brother.
John Mylett: Catherine’s younger brother.
Thomas Davis: An upholsterer and commercial traveller. Catherine Mylett’s common-law husband from approximately 1880-1883. Father of Florence and Henry Mylett.
Florence Beatrice “Florrie/Flossie” Mylett: Catherine Mylett’s daughter. Born September 12, 1880. Lived with her grandmother for a period, and was attending school in Sutton when her mother died.
Henry Mylett: Catherine Mylett’s son. Born June 29, 1883. Believed to have died in 1884.
Benjamin Goodson: Carman and ex-convict with whom Catherine Mylett lived at 18 George Street in the last months of her life.
Charles Ptolomey: Infirmary worker who saw Catherine Mylett speaking with two sailors near Clarke’s Yard on the evening of December 19th, 1888.
Alice Graves: Witness who saw Catherine Mylett, drunk, with two men near The George pub on the morning of December 20th, 1888.
Robert Golding: Police Sergeant who discovered Catherine Mylett’s body.
Thomas Costello: Police Constable who was with Sergeant Golding when they found the body.
George James Harris: Assistant Divisional Police Surgeon, he was initially called to the scene and found no obvious signs of foul play.
Curtain T. Chivers: Mortuary keeper and Coroner’s assistant, who discovers the mark on Mylett’s neck.
Matthew Brownfield: Divisional Police Surgeon who performed the post-mortem and concluded Catherine Mylett had been strangled.
James Monro: Metropolitan Police Commissioner. He was initially skeptical of murder, but later accepted Brownfield’s and Mackellar’s conclusions.
Mr. Mackellar: Surgeon who provided a second medical opinion and concurred with Brownfield that death was the result of strangulation.
Wynne Baxter: Coroner who presided over the inquest into Catherine Mylett’s death. He believed it was a murder.
George Bagster Phillips: Police Surgeon who had inspected the body of Annie Chapman, and believed that Mylett’s murder was the work of the same person, relying on the fact that that person knew how to strangulate a victim.
Robert Anderson: Police official who maintained that Catherine Mylett’s death was due to natural causes.
Thomas Bond: Surgeon from Westminster who was asked to re-examine the body. He concluded that it was not a case of murder, but that she choked from her stiff collar.
Green: A young woman who was asked for directions to the East India Dock Road by two men, likely seamen, on the morning of Mylett’s death.
William Bury: A suspect in the Whitechapel murders. It was noted that he could easily walk to the site of the murder.

FAQ on the Murder of Rose Mylett

Who was Rose Mylett, and why does her identity seem so confusing?

Rose Mylett was a woman born Catherine Mylett on December 8, 1859. She used numerous aliases throughout her life, including Catherine Millett, Kate Davis, ‘Drunken Lizzie’ Davis, Elizabeth Davis, Elizabeth Myllett (on her death certificate), ‘Fair Alice’ Downey, ‘Fair Clara,’ and Alice Downey (or Downe). This multiplicity of names, coupled with limited official records and newspaper reports, has made it difficult for historians to piece together her life. Her aliases seem to have been geographically specific, using names like “Rose” in Bromley, “Elizabeth Davis” in Whitechapel, and “Alice Downey/Downe” in Poplar. This contributes to the confusion surrounding her true identity.

What were the circumstances surrounding the discovery of Rose Mylett’s body?

On the morning of December 20, 1888, at approximately 4:15 AM, Rose Mylett’s body was discovered by Police Sergeant Robert Golding and Constable Thomas Costello in Clarke’s Yard off Poplar High Street. The body was found lying on its left side and was still warm, suggesting that death had occurred recently. Initially, there were no obvious signs of violence. The police initially suspected natural causes or suicide, as her clothes were not disarranged and there were no visible wounds or signs of a struggle. However, a later examination revealed a mark around her neck.

What conflicting conclusions were drawn by the medical professionals regarding Rose Mylett’s cause of death?

Initially, police doctors were baffled by Mylett’s death due to the absence of obvious injuries. However, a more thorough examination by Dr. Matthew Brownfield revealed a ligature mark on her neck, indicating strangulation. This led him to conclude that her death was a murder. Despite this, other medical professionals, including Dr. Robert Anderson, initially disagreed, arguing that there were no other signs of a struggle and suggesting that Mylett might have choked due to natural causes or an accident. Dr. Thomas Bond was called in to review the case, and initially didn’t see evidence of strangulation marks, but then reexamined it and agreed with Dr. Brownfield. This disagreement among medical professionals caused confusion and controversy surrounding the case.

Why was there debate about whether Rose Mylett was a victim of Jack the Ripper?

The debate stemmed from the timing of her death, which occurred shortly after the last confirmed canonical Jack the Ripper victim, Mary Kelly. The location of the crime, near the Whitechapel area where the Ripper killings took place, and the public’s anxiety about the return of the serial killer contributed to the idea that the killing was related to other murders. However, unlike the Ripper victims, Rose Mylett was not mutilated. This absence of mutilation led most experts to conclude that the murder was not the work of Jack the Ripper. However, the Star newspaper attempted to connect the case by suggesting the Ripper may have changed his methods and was strangling victims first, a theory supported by a supposed “source close to” Dr. George Bagster Phillips.

What was the role of the coroner, Wynne Baxter, in the investigation?

Coroner Wynne Baxter played a significant role in the investigation and subsequent inquest into the death of Rose Mylett. He was skeptical of the police’s initial theory that it was a natural death, and instead strongly advocated for the theory that Mylett was murdered by strangulation, siding with the opinions of Dr. Brownfield and the doctors who also examined the body at the inquest. He was critical of the police for not taking the medical evidence into account initially and of Dr. Anderson for his differing viewpoint. The jury ultimately followed Baxter’s lead and ruled Mylett’s death as murder by person or persons unknown.

How did the police and the public react to the medical findings and the coroner’s verdict?

The police, particularly the C.I.D. and Dr. Anderson, were initially skeptical of the idea that Rose Mylett was murdered. They were resistant to change their views based on the marks around her neck as they could find no clear evidence of strangulation from an object. The police deemed the case to be a natural death or an accident and therefore were initially uninterested in pursuing an investigation, something that surprised even the Metropolitan Police Commissioner James Monro. This stance was met with criticism from the coroner, Wynne Baxter, and some of the public who were concerned that a potential killer was still at large. However, most newspapers, as well as the police, tried to discourage sensationalist narratives surrounding the murder, likely due to the unrest caused by the Whitechapel Murders.

What was Rose Mylett’s personal life like, and what is known about her circumstances?

Rose Mylett’s personal life was complex and troubled. She had a history of casual prostitution and struggled with alcohol addiction. She was of Irish descent, born in Whitechapel. She had two children with Thomas Davis, though one likely died in infancy. She used her alias “Rose” while at the Bromley Infirmary where she stayed several times during the 1880’s. Mylett had a family consisting of both her parents and several siblings. She lived in various lodging houses throughout her life and was cohabitating with a man named Benjamin Goodson just before her death.

What are the key reasons that most experts believe Rose Mylett was not a victim of Jack the Ripper?

While her death occurred in close proximity to the Whitechapel murders, and her body was found in an area where prostitutes frequented, several key differences lead most experts to believe she was not a Ripper victim. Primarily, the lack of mutilation, the Ripper’s infamous modus operandi, was not seen in Mylett’s case. Also, while she was likely murdered the medical findings and witness testimony of a night attendant contradicted one another. Moreover, despite the popular theory of the Star newspaper, there is no real evidence that the Ripper ever used strangulation and therefore any claims connecting the two are tenuous at best. The majority consensus is that the Rose Mylett case is more likely an isolated murder.

Conclusion

The death of ROSE MYLETT remains a complex case characterized by conflicting evidence, societal prejudice, and media frenzy, illustrating the often-overlooked struggles of marginalized individuals in Victorian society. Her life, marked by aliases and uncertainty, serves as a poignant narrative of a woman who was largely rendered invisible and unseen in her lifetime by those who held the social power. Ultimately, her story demonstrates the failures of the system, and reminds us that history is not only meant to be explored but also must include those whose stories have been traditionally overlooked. By examining her death, we confront the social and systemic inequalities of the Victorian era which continue to echo in society today.

Reference Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitechapel_murders