'the biggest blunder in the search for Jack the Ripper'

[PhiltheBear]

The written statements of the witnesses (as opposed to press reports about the inquest) are on file at the Corporation of London Records office.

Louis Robinson (arresting officer): "We then took her to Bishopsgate Street Police Station. When asked her name she made the reply 'Nothing'. We then put her in the cells."

James Byfield, Station Sergeant: "...she was very drunk having to be supported by the 2 constables who brought her in. She was taken back to the cell and detained there until one o'clock in the morning when she was sober. I discharged her after she gave her name and address which she was unable to do when brought in."


This is how the incident is worded in the officers' own witness statements. The records suggest that she was unable to give her name and address, not that she was incapable of speech. I don't see an ambiguity in the original documentation - "she made the reply, 'Nothing' ".

Regards, Bridewell.

You missed the first bit of Robinson's testimony - where she was so drunk he needed help to get her to the police station. It also said she was so drunk that when he put her against the shutters she fell over. And I've highlighted for you the relevant bit of Byfield's statement.

It says she was unable to give her name and address. Not - she said 'Nothing'. It strongly suggests that she was so drunk she couldn't give any intelligible reply and thus when asked her name she said nothing at all.

Two differing versions of the same event. Robinson v Byfield. I'll go with the experienced Sergeant.

[Bridewell]

However, my opinion is that she was too drunk to reply and didn't say anything. That fits with the testimonies of both the arresting officer saying she was incapable and needed 2 people to get her to the station and the custody sergeant stating that she was unable to reply when questioned. If she was unable to give her name and address how was she able to say 'Nothing'?

The written statements of the witnesses (as opposed to press reports about the inquest) are on file at the Corporation of London Records office.

Louis Robinson (arresting officer): "We then took her to Bishopsgate Street Police Station. When asked her name she made the reply 'Nothing'. We then put her in the cells."

James Byfield, Station Sergeant: "...she was very drunk having to be supported by the 2 constables who brought her in. She was taken back to the cell and detained there until one o'clock in the morning when she was sober. I discharged her after she gave her name and address which she was unable to do when brought in."


This is how the incident is worded in the officers' own witness statements. The records suggest that she was unable to give her name and address, not that she was incapable of speech. I don't see an ambiguity in the original documentation - "she made the reply, 'Nothing' ".

Regards, Bridewell.

[PhiltheBear]

Again, that's up to you, Phil. But Dave Yost, Alex Chisholm, and Christopher-Michael DiGrazia published their excellent book News from Whitechapel some years ago and they used the articles from the Daily Telegraph as the basis of their book because of its acknowledged reliability.

The Telegraph is just one of a number of newspapers that reports that Eddowes replied "Nothing" to Robinson's question, and it appears that you yourself are now acknowledging that the police constable both wrote that she replied "Nothing" to him and that he said the same thing in court, as reported by those newspapers. Yes the wording of the events as described by the several newspapers is a bit different but that reply is reported the same way. I'll also acknowledge that The Times did not report that reply by Eddowes but that does not mean she didn't say it.

Chris,

I'm one of those sceptics that tends to think that people who write books on JtR do so to push a version of events that they believe in (My forthcoming monograph "The Truth about Goulston Street" being an exception, of course... )

Therefore, I tend to stick with primary, factual documents and, in this instance, I'll stay with the coroner's record and not the papers. I agree 100% with you that what was recorded is that Eddowes replied "Nothing" when asked her name.

However, my opinion is that she was too drunk to reply and didn't say anything. That fits with the testimonies of both the arresting officer saying she was incapable and needed 2 people to get her to the station and the custody sergeant stating that she was unable to reply when questioned. If she was unable to give her name and address how was she able to say 'Nothing'?

It's a major problem with all JtR 'investigations'. There are lots of theories, suspects, etc. very, very few of which gel with common sense and actual hard facts. Come to that, there aren't that many hard facts available either. Being a pedantic sort of chap I'll go with the common sense solution every time. The rest may be amusing, and provide those 'heated arguments' that Ripperologists indulge in, but they are exceedingly unlikely to be correct. After all, if they were, then we know that Patricia Cornwell solved it all for us. Don't we?

Phil

[ChrisGeorge]

Thanks for that great information, Monty.

Cheers

Chris

[Monty]

Hi everyone.

This photo might help; it shows the recesses in front of the Wentworth Dwellings surrounded by iron fences designed to protect passersby from tumbling in. If I remember correctly the recesses were about 8 feet deep. They were intended to let a bit of light down to the lower level.

Note that in this photo there's a lamp-post right in front of the doorway...Was it there in 1888?

Best regards,
Archaic

Hi Bunny, Chris, Moonbegger,

Yes, that is John Bennetts photo which he posted a while back showing the recessess. I put it up myself a few months ago.

When Rob and I visited the rear of Gouldston Street back in 2007 we noted window lentals around ankle height. We couldnt figure this out and assumed them to be Cellar lights. However their configuration looked odd.

Also, when I was compiling my Mitre Square article in the Rip (again around 2006/7), Jake noted the wall towards the Goulston Street baths and questioned it, why a wall that seemingly just jutted out for no reason. Well now we do know.

Johns photos ofthe front and the rear (the rear I attach) then appeared and they show recessess. The photos was taken in the 1970s Chris and whilst the street lamping is modern, the fronatge is original in terms of configuration.

Now I am aware that the dwellings had a makeover in the 1920s and recesses were filled in including the entrance we know and love. And whilst the photo is of the wrong entrance, I attach a Goads map to show the recesses ran in full, they are highlighted in green.

Hope this helps.

Cheers
Monty

[ChrisGeorge]

Evening All

It should also be noted , that this is not actually the GSG doorway .. 108-19

cheers
moonbegger

That's correct. The doorway is not at the end of the street like that.

Chris

[moonbegger]

Evening All

It should also be noted , that this is not actually the GSG doorway .. 108-19

cheers
moonbegger

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Archaic

Yes of course I realise you know it couldn't be the same lamp that was there in 1888 -- but what I am saying is that I doubt that a modern lamp would have replaced an old one. I think there would have been an entirely different arrangement in 1888. Different strokes for different folks, as the saying goes.

All the best

Chris

[Archaic]

Street-Lamp

Hi Chris.

Sorry, I should have worded my question better. I know that the lamp in the photo is an electric one, but was asking if there might have been one in the same location (or close by) in 1888.

I'm guessing that then as now lamps were placed near street-corners, and the entrance to the dwellings is quite close to a corner. And being a newer building in 1888, I thought it might have all the mod cons, such as street-lighting.

OK, where's Rob & Monty?? I may be the equestrian, but they're the cavalry.

Best regards,
Archaic

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi everyone.

This photo might help; it shows the recesses in front of the Wentworth Dwellings surrounded by iron fences designed to protect passersby from tumbling in. If I remember correctly the recesses were about 8 feet deep. They were intended to let a bit of light down to the lower level.

Note that in this photo there's a lamp-post right in front of the doorway...Was it there in 1888?

Best regards,
Archaic

Hi Archaic

That's a modern electric lamp post so the same lamp post could not have been there in 1888. The arrangement in 1888 would have been vastly different with gas lights sporadically found along the street. Maybe Monty has the answer.

All the best

Chris

[Archaic]

Old Front of Wentworth Dwellings

Hi Phil,

The recesses were at the front, for the basement, and were surrounded by a fence.

If you look at the dwellings today, these have been filled in, with patterned tiles.

In 1888, and it seems up to early 1970s, you couldn't walk flush up against the dweliing frontage.

So, with a casual throw away in mind, why not dispose into the recess instead?

Monty

Hi everyone.

This photo might help; it shows the recesses in front of the Wentworth Dwellings surrounded by iron fences designed to protect passersby from tumbling in. If I remember correctly the recesses were about 8 feet deep. They were intended to let a bit of light down to the lower level.

Note that in this photo there's a lamp-post right in front of the doorway...Was it there in 1888?

Best regards,
Archaic

[Beowulf]

Funny... I thought that the whole point of Casebook was that at this stage we were supposed to huff and puff and get heated with each other...

I must be missing something!

All the best Barbara

Dave

Quite right! I should've posted this first:



and then said "Well, there blows another theory of mine, lol."

[Hunter]

The Times had a habit of mixing direct quotes with third person summaries (the witness stated that...). The first part of Robinson's testimony is presented in summary form by the Times. They did the same thing with Kelly's testimony, leaving out his reference to 'Cooney's', which was repeated verbatim in the Daily Telegraph.

[Tom_Wescott]

For what it's worth...

According to the Star, witnesses to the graffiti said that it resembled the Dear Boss letter/Saucy Jacky postcard. According the police reports, no one thought it resembled the letters.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

Funny... I thought that the whole point of Casebook was that at this stage we were supposed to huff and puff and get heated with each other...

I must be missing something!

All the best Barbara

Dave