Newspaper report 1st August request

[Elamarna]

Hi all

There is a gap in the reporting of the Nichols inquest; that is there appears to be only one report from Saturday 1st September which includes the Testimony of PC Neil., that being the Evening Post.

Is anyone aware of any other surviving accounts specifically from the first.


Steve

My apologies for the wrong date in the thread title

[David Orsam]

I don't know if this is any use to you Steve. It's from the Globe of 1 September 1888:

Police Constable John Neil (J 97) deposed that he was proceeding down Bucks-Row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, at a quarter to four in the morning. There was no-one about at the time. He had been round the same place about half-an-hour previously, and he had seen no-one then. On the right hand side of the road he found the body. There was a lamp nearly opposite to where the deceased was lying. On the opposite side was Essex Wharf, belonging to Mr. Brown, who owned some stables on the side of the road where the deceased was lying. She was lying lengthways to the street with her left hand touching the gate of the stables. Blood was oozing from her throat. Here (sic) clothes were disarranged. The palms of her hands were open, and feeling her hands he found them quite warm. The eyes were quite open, and her bonnet was lying by her side. Hearing a constable passing, he sent him for an ambulance. The witness remained by the side of the body until the doctor came, which was about ten minutes afterwards. No one had appeared except the police, and two people whom they had knocked up, and who said they heard nothing. When the doctor came he pronounced life to be extinct. The deceased was then placed on the ambulance and carried to the mortuary. In the pockets were found a white handkerchief, a broken comb, and a small piece of looking-glass; but no money. – The Coroner: Did you hear any noise that night? No; on the contrary, the night was unusually quiet. The witness had not seen any women about except in Whitechapel-road; he had not seen the deceased that night. There were no signs of the body having been dragged along the road. Two men came along while the body was being placed on the ambulance. With the exception of a man who passed Bucks-row while the doctor was there, these two men, who came from a slaughter-house near, were the first to arrive on the scene. They were on their way home from their work.

[Elamarna]

I don't know if this is any use to you Steve. It's from the Globe of 1 September 1888:

Police Constable John Neil (J 97) deposed that he was proceeding down Bucks-Row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, at a quarter to four in the morning. There was no-one about at the time. He had been round the same place about half-an-hour previously, and he had seen no-one then. On the right hand side of the road he found the body. There was a lamp nearly opposite to where the deceased was lying. On the opposite side was Essex Wharf, belonging to Mr. Brown, who owned some stables on the side of the road where the deceased was lying. She was lying lengthways to the street with her left hand touching the gate of the stables. Blood was oozing from her throat. Here (sic) clothes were disarranged. The palms of her hands were open, and feeling her hands he found them quite warm. The eyes were quite open, and her bonnet was lying by her side. Hearing a constable passing, he sent him for an ambulance. The witness remained by the side of the body until the doctor came, which was about ten minutes afterwards. No one had appeared except the police, and two people whom they had knocked up, and who said they heard nothing. When the doctor came he pronounced life to be extinct. The deceased was then placed on the ambulance and carried to the mortuary. In the pockets were found a white handkerchief, a broken comb, and a small piece of looking-glass; but no money. – The Coroner: Did you hear any noise that night? No; on the contrary, the night was unusually quiet. The witness had not seen any women about except in Whitechapel-road; he had not seen the deceased that night. There were no signs of the body having been dragged along the road. Two men came along while the body was being placed on the ambulance. With the exception of a man who passed Bucks-row while the doctor was there, these two men, who came from a slaughter-house near, were the first to arrive on the scene. They were on their way home from their work.

Thanks David.
Looks very like the Evening Post.

So seems we have at least 3 reporters at the Saturday.

This and Evening Post,
Lloyds
All the rest.
Times possibly seperate so maybe 4.

Really hope there is another one but I am not optimistic.


Steve

[David Orsam]

Thanks David.
Looks very like the Evening Post.

So seems we have at least 3 reporters at the Saturday.

This and Evening Post,
Lloyds
All the rest.
Times possibly seperate so maybe 4.

Really hope there is another one but I am not optimistic.

Aren't Lloyds and "All the rest" by the same reporter though?

[Elamarna]

Aren't Lloyds and "All the rest" by the same reporter though?

Yes of course David perfectly correct.
I was posting from memory rather than checking on previous posts

The Times is 3rd source not Lloyds.
Lloyds is just different in that it days left rather than right.



Steve

[David Orsam]

Yes, I'm afraid I haven't been much help. I'll have a think about any other possible reports.

[Elamarna]

Yes, I'm afraid I haven't been much help. I'll have a think about any other possible reports.

No you have been a great help.
The Globe joins the Evening News. Meaning it's not just 1 against many.

A 4th reporter would be great. Been wading through lots of reports, last couple of days to find an alternative.

Many thanks

Steve

[Elamarna]

Thanks David.
Looks very like the Evening Post.

So seems we have at least 3 reporters at the Saturday.

This and Evening Post,
Lloyds
All the rest.
Times possibly seperate so maybe 4.

Really hope there is another one but I am not optimistic.


Steve

David there are some minor differences between the Globe and the Evening Post. Do you know what address the Globe gave for walker as you pointed out for the other papers?

Steve

[David Orsam]

Hi Steve,

That was the first thing I looked for. No address is given.

It just says:

"Mr. E. Walker was the first witness examined."

There are a number of differences between the Globe report of his evidence and the Evening Post report.

For example, the Globe records the following question and answer:

"The coroner: How do you know her to be your daughter? - The witness: From her general appearance, and a scar which she had on her forehead, and which was done when she was a child."

Evening Post doesn't have this Q&A verbatim and refers to "a mark" rather than a scar.

Evening Post says the mark was "slightly visible" which isn't in the Globe report.

Plenty of other differences too.

And yes I do see differences between the Neil reports in the Globe and Post.

[Elamarna]

So may have the 4th report.

Been rewriting a section of part 2 today..
London Conference next 2 days so may not be online much.

Very many thanks

Steve

[Pierre]

Hi Steve,

That was the first thing I looked for. No address is given.

It just says:

"Mr. E. Walker was the first witness examined."

There are a number of differences between the Globe report of his evidence and the Evening Post report.

For example, the Globe records the following question and answer:

"The coroner: How do you know her to be your daughter? - The witness: From her general appearance, and a scar which she had on her forehead, and which was done when she was a child."

Evening Post doesn't have this Q&A verbatim and refers to "a mark" rather than a scar.

Evening Post says the mark was "slightly visible" which isn't in the Globe report.

Plenty of other differences too.

And yes I do see differences between the Neil reports in the Globe and Post.

Hi David,

If there would have been no other differences than the expression "slightly visible", how would you have explained that?

Pierre

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

If there would have been no other differences than the expression "slightly visible", how would you have explained that?

Oh my dear boy, a world renowned and respected academic historian once told me that questions containing "would have" and "if" are not correct questions for a historian and do not assist us at arriving at historical truth, or some such guffins.

So I would normally refuse to answer - were it not for the fact that this same expert historian has also opened my eyes to the fact that Jack the Ripper was leaving coded clues all over the place in 1888, including in newspapers, so that one needs to be very alert when we see a single discrepancy of this nature.

So my dear boy, my thought process, if there would have been no other differences than the expression "slightly visible" would, obviously, be that the killer had somehow managed to insert those words into the newspaper and was sending out a message in code.

Clearly he was telling us that within the words "slightly visible" there is a clue which is slightly visible.

Now, it was the first murder in a series so I would be looking to rearrange some of the letters to form some kind of number. Because I would assume he was going to tell us how many murders he was going to commit.

And, oh my lord, there it is, right there, just slightly visible. THE NUMBER EIGHT !!!!

It's the only number in there between one and fifty. He was intending to murder eight women.

[Pierre]

Oh my dear boy, a world renowned and respected academic historian once told me that questions containing "would have" and "if" are not correct questions for a historian and do not assist us at arriving at historical truth, or some such guffins.

So I would normally refuse to answer - were it not for the fact that this same expert historian has also opened my eyes to the fact that Jack the Ripper was leaving coded clues all over the place in 1888, including in newspapers, so that one needs to be very alert when we see a single discrepancy of this nature.

So my dear boy, my thought process, if there would have been no other differences than the expression "slightly visible" would, obviously, be that the killer had somehow managed to insert those words into the newspaper and was sending out a message in code.

Clearly he was telling us that within the words "slightly visible" there is a clue which is slightly visible.

Now, it was the first murder in a series so I would be looking to rearrange some of the letters to form some kind of number. Because I would assume he was going to tell us how many murders he was going to commit.

And, oh my lord, there it is, right there, just slightly visible. THE NUMBER EIGHT !!!!

It's the only number in there between one and fifty. He was intending to murder eight women.

Firstly this is an example drawn from an historical fact, i.e. the paper did write that expression, even though it in itself is insignificant.

The example is just a tool for testing hypothetical options and not part of history writing.

So it has nothing to do with if:s and wouldhaves in history writing.

But you donīt understand the example and the question I wrote.

The expression would have been be made up by the paper if there was just one paper writing it. No paper had any "extra" information.

That is an if and would have answer to an if and would have question.

And this has now turned into an hypothesis. What do you say about it?

Pierre

[David Orsam]

Firstly this is an example drawn from an historical fact, i.e. the paper did write that expression, even though it in itself is insignificant.

The example is just a tool for testing hypothetical options and not part of history writing.

So it has nothing to do with if:s and wouldhaves in history writing.

But you donīt understand the example and the question I wrote.

The expression would have been be made up by the paper if there was just one paper writing it. No paper had any "extra" information.

That is an if and would have answer to an if and would have question.

And this has now turned into an hypothesis. What do you say about it?

Oh my dear boy, I understood your question perfectly. You were asking me about something that never happened or existed at any time in history but, at the same time, asking me to explain what it would have meant if it had happened.

And, my dear boy, I gave you my answer.

[Pierre]

Oh my dear boy, I understood your question perfectly. You were asking me about something that never happened or existed at any time in history but, at the same time, asking me to explain what it would have meant if it had happened.

And, my dear boy, I gave you my answer.

But your answer was meaningless. So clearly you did not understand the question.