Francis Kohl’s was born on 17th September 1859 in Bure, a densely populated and predominantly workingclass district in South London. Her father, William James Kohl’s, had come from Somerset in search of better opportunities and earned his living as a shoemaker, a skilled trade that nonetheless provided only a modest income.
Her mother, Maryanne, was originally from Ireland. Together they raised their family in circumstances defined by limited financial security and the persistent strain of poverty common in Victorian Britain. From an early age, Francis grew up surrounded by the realities of economic hardship. Employment for working-class families was uncertain, wages were low, and illness was frequent.
Education for poor children during the 1860s was minimal and inconsistent. Schools were often overcrowded and poorly funded with a basic curriculum focused on reading, writing, and arithmetic. Attendance was irregular because many children were required to contribute to household income, and teachers were frequently underpaid and untrained.
Resources such as books and proper supplies were scarce. In time, the Coohl’s family moved to White Lion Court in Bureet, an area known as the Leather District because of its busy leather industries. Despite Williams efforts to provide stability, the move did little to improve their condition, they continued to live in cramped housing with poor sanitation, facing the enduring difficulties of workingclass life in late 19th century London.
Within this environment of hardship and limited opportunity, Francis’s early years were shaped by the social and economic constraints that would influence the course of her adult life. In 1880, at the age of 21, Francis Kohl’s left her family home in South London in search of independence and steadier income.
She secured employment as a saleswoman at a wholesale pharmacy in the minies north of the rivers. The position appeared respectable and offered the possibility of regular wages, something her upbringing had rarely guaranteed. However, the daily routine proved physically demanding. She later confided in her elder sister, Maryanne, that the constant task of corking and uncawking bottles left her hands and knuckles painfully sore.
The repetitive strain wore her down, and the stability she had hoped for began to feel uncertain. Although she initially persevered, Francis eventually abandoned the position. By 1883, at 24 years old, her circumstances had not improved. Faced with limited options and ongoing financial pressure, she turned to prostitution as a means of survival.
According to those who knew her, this decision was driven by necessity rather than preference. She was described as attractive and quickly became popular among local men seeking her services. Even so, she worked to conceal this reality from her family, particularly her father, determined to shield him from the truth.
On 26th December 1890, she visited her sister Maryanne. During that meeting, she maintained that she was still employed at the pharmacy and living respectably near Commercial Road. Yet her appearance raised concern. She looked unckempt, impoverished, and carried a faint smell of alcohol. Maryanne sensed that her sister was hiding something, though Francis guarded her situation carefully.
By early 1891, William James Kohl’s had become frail and was residing at the Bureet Workhouse on Tanner Street. His declining health reflected the cumulative hardships of a lifetime spent in modest employment and limited means. Despite her own unstable circumstances, Francis continued to visit him regularly.
She often accompanied him to church on Sundays, maintaining the appearance of steadiness and filial devotion, even as her private struggles intensified. During these visits, her father frequently asked about her well-being. Though weakened, he was perceptive and sensed that something was a miss. Francis consistently reassured him that she was fine and urged him not to worry.
However, on Friday, 6th February 1891, she altered her account slightly. She admitted that she had left her position at the wholesale pharmacy. Even so, she insisted that she was managing and claimed she was still living near Commercial Road. Her admission was partial and carefully measured.
She did not disclose the full extent of her financial distress or the means by which she now supported herself. Instead, she maintained a composed front, attempting to protect her father from anxiety during his final months. This conversation held just days before her death reveals the tension between truth and concealment that marked her final weeks, and it provides context for her emotional state as events moved toward their tragic conclusion.
On Wednesday, 11th February 1891, James Thomas Sadler, a 53-year-old merchant seaman and fireman aboard the SS Fez, was on leave from his ship. Seeking diversion, he visited several ale houses before arriving at the Princess Alice Pub. There he encountered Francis Kohl’s, whom he already knew as a former client. The two began talking and eventually left together, making their way to Spittlefield’s Chambers, a lodging house on Whites Row.
They secured accommodation and spent the night there. The following day, Thursday, 12th February, Francis remained in Saddler’s company. They were seen drinking together during the afternoon and evening. At some point, she visited a milliner’s shop on Nottingham Street in Bethnyl Green, where she purchased a new black hat.
The shopkeeper, Peter Hawks, later remarked that she appeared to be intoxicated, yet he completed the sale with money Sadler had given her. By 9:00 p.m., tensions surfaced between them. Sadler claimed that he had been robbed and accused Francis of spending his money on drink. Witnesses observed them arguing, and the disagreement appeared heated.
Eventually, Sadler wandered away, visibly displeased. Later that night, around 11:30 p.m., Francis returned alone to Spittlefield’s chambers. She was described as visibly intoxicated. Finding space on a bench in the kitchen area, she rested her head on her arms and quickly fell asleep. Not long afterward, Sadler also returned to the lodging house.
He appeared battered and bruised, claiming that he had been attacked and denied re-entry to his ship. The night watchman, Charles Go, assisted him in cleaning his blooded face, but refused him further access without payment. When Sadler asked Francis for money for his bed, she briefly replied that she had none before drifting back to sleep.
Without funds, he left at approximately 1:00 a.m. Soon after his departure, Francis awoke. Lacking money for lodging herself, she too was required to leave the premises, stepping back into the cold, early hours of Friday, 13th February, 1891. After leaving Spittlefield’s Chambers in the early hours of Friday, 13th February, 1891, Francis Kohl’s walked through the cold streets and entered Shuttleworth’s Cafe on Wentworth Street.
There she ordered food, seeking warmth and brief shelter. However, once she had finished eating, she refused to leave, having nowhere else to go. Eventually, the young server Joseph Haswell persuaded her to depart. Returning to the streets of the East End, she encountered another woman engaged in the same trade, Ellen Kana.
The two spoke briefly, sharing a moment of conversation in the dimly lit surroundings. During their exchange, a man wearing a cheese cutter hat approached them and attempted to solicit Ellen. When she refused, he struck her in the face. He then shifted his attention to Francis. Despite witnessing the assault, Francis chose to accompany him, and the pair walked away together into the darkness.
At approximately 2:15 a.m., police constable Ernest Thompson was patrolling near Swallow Gardens, close to the Royal Mint. In a shadowed archway, he discovered a young woman lying on the ground with a deep cut across her throat. She was still alive when found. Thompson immediately called for assistance and other officers arrived within minutes. Dr.
Oxley was summoned and reached the scene promptly, but by the time he examined her, she had succumbed to her injuries. Inspector Flanigan and Dr. George Bagster Phillips later assessed the scene and confirmed that the fatal wound was a deep incision to the throat. News of the killing spread rapidly.
Memories of the 1888 murders attributed to Jack the Ripper remained vivid in public consciousness, and speculation began almost immediately, even before the victim’s identity had been formally established. Later that morning, attention turned to identifying the victim. Mrs. Fleming, who worked at Spittlefield’s chambers, suspected that the deceased woman might be Francis Kohl’s.
Accompanied by her assistant, Florence Monk, she went to Lemon Street Police Station. There she was taken to view the body and confirmed that the victim was indeed Francis. In addition to identifying her, Mrs. Fleming provided officers with a detailed description of a man she had seen at the lodging house.
She described him as wearing a cheese cutter hat, a short blue jacket, blue surge trousers, and lace up boots. Her account corresponded with observations made earlier by Sergeant Edwards, who had reported encountering a suspicious man with bloodstained clothing during the early hours. Determined to assist further, Mrs.
Fleming later accompanied police officers through the streets of White Chapel, visiting various beer houses. After hours of searching, she identified James Thomas Sadler inside one establishment. Officers approached him and placed him under arrest. At the station, Sergeant Edwards confirmed that Sadler was the same man he had encountered previously.
As word spread, several witnesses stated that Sadler had been seen in Francis’s company on the night of her death. Rumors quickly circulated that he was responsible not only for her murder, but also for the earlier killings attributed to Jack the Ripper. Public anger intensified and a crowd gathered outside the police station.
Officers were forced to protect Sadler from the hostile mob as tensions escalated in the streets. James Thomas Sadler was brought before the Tempame’s police court where initial proceedings addressed the charge of murdering Francis Kohl’s. The court limited public access due to intense interest in the case.
During the inquest presided over by coroner Baxter, witnesses presented their accounts of the events surrounding her death. Samuel Harris testified that he had seen Francis in the kitchen of Spittlefield’s chambers and heard Sadler ask her for money for his bed. Mrs. Fleming and Florence Monk repeated their observations concerning Sadler’s appearance and conduct.
A significant piece of testimony came from Darren Campbell. He stated that on the morning of 13th February, a man claiming to have been robbed offered to sell him a knife. Campbell purchased it for a shilling and later noticed that although no blood was visible, the blade appeared damp. He washed it, observing slight discoloration in the water, and subsequently pawned it before informing police.
In court, he identified Sadler as the man who sold him the knife. Sadler’s defense emphasized that he had sought treatment at London Hospital around 5:00 a.m. where staff confirmed his attendance. Witnesses described him as heavily intoxicated and none could place him directly at Swallow Gardens at the time of the murder.
Character statements from his wife and maritime associates portrayed him as hardworking though prone to drink. The evidence, while suggestive, did not conclusively establish his presence at the scene. On 27th February 1891, the inquest into the death of Francis Kohl’s concluded. Coroner Baxter addressed the jury, reminding them that although the case bore similarities to earlier murders, their duty was to determine responsibility based solely on the evidence presented.
After extended deliberation, the jury returned with a verdict that Francis Kohl’s had been willfully murdered by some person or persons unknown. They further stated that the police had acted appropriately in detaining James Thomas Sadler. Following the verdict, Sadler was released from custody. As he left the court, a crowd gathered outside and some members cheered his discharge.
Nevertheless, debate continued both publicly and within Scotland Yard. Certain officials maintained suspicions about his involvement, while others pointed to testimony describing him as heavily intoxicated during the relevant hours, arguing that such a condition made the precise wound unlikely. The press had widely speculated that Sadler might also be responsible for the earlier murders attributed to Jack the Ripper.
This reporting drew criticism from the British interior minister, who publicly condemned sensationalism. Later claims by Frederick Deeming, who alleged responsibility for Francis’s death, were undermined by inconsistencies and his imprisonment elsewhere at the time. Despite investigations, testimony, and public scrutiny, no individual was convicted.
The murder of Francis Kohl’s in the early hours of 13th February 1891 remains officially unsolved.
