The silence of Abberline

[David Orsam]

Did the jury see the grate, the glass and the candle in the room?

The jury would have seen everything in the room at the time Pierre. I would like to stress that point because in the OP you asked: "Why did Abberline say nothing about the victim, the bed, the tables, the doors, the windows and the partition in the room?". He didn't say anything about the victim because that was the responsibility of the doctor and you now have your answer for the remaining four items in your list.

[Geddy2112]

If only we knew more about the candle then we would surely solve this mystery for good....

[Rosella]

Yes, especially as it was a half penny one.

[Pierre]

The jury would have seen everything in the room at the time Pierre. I would like to stress that point because in the OP you asked: "Why did Abberline say nothing about the victim, the bed, the tables, the doors, the windows and the partition in the room?". He didn't say anything about the victim because that was the responsibility of the doctor and you now have your answer for the remaining four items in your list.

Hi David,

Some questions, then:

1) If the jury saw everything in the room, why did Abberline talk exclusively about three things the jury had already seen, i.e. a grate, a glass and a candle, but not about any of the other things the jury had already seen?

2) If the fact that Inspector Abberline didn't say anything about the victim was due to the responsibility of the doctor to say it,

Why did Inspector Chandler describe the body of Annie Chapman at the Chapman inquest?

And why did constable Neil describe the body of Polly Nichols at the inquest, and

Why did Inspector Spratling describe the body at the mortuary at the inquest of Polly Nichols?

And why did police constable Lamb describe the body at the Stride inquest?

And why did City police Constable Watkins describe the body at the inquest of Eddowes?

And why did Inspector Collard describe the same body at the same inquest?

Also: Why did Walter Beck not say a word about the body at the Kelly inquest?

So, summing up the question:

Why, if it was the responsibility of the doctor(s) to talk about the bodies at all the inquest, did Abberline and Beck say nothing about the body, while the other policemen, at all the other inquests,
did describe the bodies?

Kind regards, Pierre

[Jon Guy]

did Abberline and Beck say nothing about the body, while the other policemen, at all the other inquests,
did describe the bodies?[/U]
[/B]

Because Abberline and Beck could only see a body by looking in through the window. By the time they had access to the room, doctors were present.

[Pierre]

Because Abberline and Beck could only see a body by looking in through the window. By the time they had access to the room, doctors were present.

Oh - so the grate, the glass and the candle were outside of the window?

Or when Abberline and Beck were inside the room, the precence of the doctors made everything except for the grate, the glass and the candle invisible?

Regards, Pierre

[Jon Guy]

[B]Oh - so the grate, the glass and the candle were outside of the window?]

Okay, Pierre.
Chandler, Neil, Lamb and Watkins all arrived at the crime scene before the doctors, and reported what they found.

Abberline and Beck could not get near the body to make a report on it`s condition. You see the difference ?

Or when Abberline and Beck were inside the room, the precence of the doctors made everything except for the grate, the glass and the candle invisible?

The doctors took charge of the body but who was going report on items in the room ?

Do we even have anything to show that Beck ever entered number 13 ?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Jon Guy;376957]Okay, Pierre.
Chandler, Neil, Lamb and Watkins all arrived at the crime scene before the doctors, and reported what they found.

Abberline and Beck could not get near the body to make a report on it`s condition. You see the difference ?

But since Abberline entered the room he was near.

The doctors took charge of the body but who was going report on items in the room ?

The body was an item in the room.

Do we even have anything to show that Beck ever entered number 13 ?

Good question. This is what Beck says in the original inquest paper transcription: "I do not know by whose order the door was forced, I was there, the doctor was the first to enter the room,..."

[Jon Guy]

Okay, Pierre.
Chandler, Neil, Lamb and Watkins all arrived at the crime scene before the doctors, and reported what they found.

But since Abberline entered the room he was near.

There were at least two doctors making notes on the body in situ, accounting for all the body parts and preparing the body to be removed to the mortuary.

Whilst the doctors were doing their job re: the medical evidence, Abberline did his job and made an inventory of the contents of the room.
Abberline stated at the inquest that he agreed with the medical evidence given by the doctor, so he must have made notes.

The body was an item in the room.

Yes, but it fell under "medical evidence", and Abberline confirmed that he agreed with the doctors evidence.

Good question. This is what Beck says in the original inquest paper transcription: "I do not know by whose order the door was forced, I was there, the doctor was the first to enter the room,..."

It`s reasonable to assume that Beck would have a had a nosey inside number 13 but there is no evidence to say he went in, and we know he was busy securing the court, and organising the police who cordoned off both ends of Dorset Street.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,
Some questions, then:

Hello Pierre,

Yes I can answer all your questions.

The grate, the candle and the broken wine glass were all mentioned by Abberline only in the context of him explaining to the inquest his thinking that there had been a large fire in the room. His conclusion about the fire came from the appearance of the grate. Thus, he said, "From the appearance of the grate it was evident a very large fire had been kept up" (Times, 13 November 1888). He also mentioned reviewing the contents of the grate as part of his investigation into the fire. The candle was mentioned in the context of saying, "there was only one piece of candle in the room" as part of his explanation as to why the killer might have needed a fire to see what he was doing and the candle was in the wine glass which is the only reason he mentioned it. You will note from Abberline's deposition, however, that there is no mention of the glass in that document - it is only referred to in newspaper reports - so I'm a little surprised that you actually believe it was ever spoken of by him.

As for why Abberline (and Beck) did not give evidence about the body:

Firstly, I challenge your claim that all the officers you have listed described the bodies of the relevant victims. I don't believe it is accurate to say that Inspector Chandler described the body of Eddowes. According to his deposition he said that Eddowes was lying in the South West corner of the square "in the position described by Constable Watkins". Watkins had found the body so there was no point repeating that evidence. As you know, Collard was handed some items found by Sergeant Jones near the body so he had to refer to the body to mention those items.

In the case of Inspector Spratling, you should be aware that he was the first person to notice the abdominal mutilations when he examined the body of Nichols at the mortuary so he was required to give evidence about this discovery.

The other officers you mention (Neil, Chandler, Lamb and Watkins) were all the first officers to arrive on the scene and thus correctly gave evidence as to the position of the body when they arrived. They are all constables apart from Inspector Chandler who happened to be the first officer summoned to the murder scene by civilians.

I don't wish to make any particular point of it but the only reason you are aware of the evidence given by most of the above officers is from newspaper reports.

As John has already mentioned, in the case of Kelly, the doctor and police entered the room at the same time. Once the doctor had given his evidence as to the condition of the body there was no point in any of that evidence being repeated by Inspector Abberline.

In any case, the jury were informed by Abberline (or Beck) about the condition of the body. At the start of the inquest, the jury was taken to the mortuary to inspect the body and from there they were taken to room 13 Millers Court where they were treated to a graphic description of the crime scene by an unnamed inspector (almost certainly Abberline but possibly Beck). Thus the Pall Mall Gazette of 12 November, whose reporter accompanied the jury into Kelly's room, reported that "The inspector, holding a candle stuck in a bottle, stood at the head of the filthy, bloodstained bed, and repeated the horrible details with appalling minuteness. He indicated with one hand the bloodstains on the wall, and point with the other to the pools which had ebbed out on to the mattress."

For your information, and for completeness, I might also mention, in respect of the tables and the windows, that the Daily Telegraph reporter who also accompanied the jury to the room (Daily Telegraph, 13 November 1888) stated:

"The position of the two tables was not altered. One of them was placed near the bed, behind the door, and the other next to the largest of the two windows which look upon the yard in which the dustbin and water-tap are situated."

I trust that answers all your questions Pierre but don't hesitate to come back to me if you need any further assistance.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Perhaps Inspector Collard had a poor sense of direction, for Eddowes' body was found in the south-east corner of Mitre Square.

Mind you, Reynolds News, 30th September, reported that Eddowes was found huddled in the centre of Mitre Square.

The case of the peripatetic corpse.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Perhaps Inspector Collard had a poor sense of direction, for Eddowes' body was found in the south-east corner of Mitre Square.

Mind you, Reynolds News, 30th September, reported that Eddowes was found huddled in the centre of Mitre Square.

The case of the peripatetic corpse.

Not the most important part of the case I would have thought Simon, unless you think there is some significance to the point? You do realize that in the real world people make mistakes, right?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Indeed I do, but am far too much of a gentleman to draw attention to the mistake in your last post.

Regards,

Simon

[Joshua Rogan]

I'd have said it was plain old South corner, myself.

[David Orsam]

Indeed I do, but am far too much of a gentleman to draw attention to the mistake in your last post.

Feel free Simon, knock yourself out. It seems rather more ungentlemanly to hint at there being a mistake but not state what the mistake is.