The silence of Abberline

[Pierre]

Hi,

Many posters have expressed the belief that the police told the truth about the crime scene in Millerīs Court. But were the police really able to tell the truth about the details of this murder scene at the inquest?

Only Beck and Abberline were present at the inquest. Beck said just a few words.

So how did Abberline describe the murder scene? Did he tell the truth about the details in 13 Millerīs Court?

Inspector Frederick G. Abberline, inspector of police, Criminal Investigation Department, Scotland-yard, stated: I am in charge of this case. I arrived at Miller's-court about 11.30 on Friday morning.

[Coroner] Was it by your orders that the door was forced ?

- No; I had an intimation from Inspector Beck that the bloodhounds had been sent for, and the reply had been received that they were on the way. ABBERLINE REFERS TO BECK.

Dr. Phillips was unwilling to force the door, as it would be very much better to test the dogs, if they were coming. ABBERLINE REFERS TO PHILLIPS.

We remained until about 1.30 p.m., when Superintendent Arnold arrived, and he informed me that the order in regard to the dogs had been countermanded, and he gave orders for the door to be forced. ABBERLINE REFERS TO ARNOLD.

I agree with the medical evidence as to the condition of the room. ABBERLINE AGAIN REFERS TO PHILLIPS.

I subsequently took an inventory of the contents of the room.

ABBERLINE USES THE EXPRESSION “THE CONTENTS”. ARE THEY DESCRIBED BY ABBERLINE IN ALL THEIR DETAILS? (WE KNOW A LOT ABOUT THE DETAILS!) LETīS SEE:


There were traces of a large fire having been kept up in the grate, so much so that it had melted the spout of a kettle off. We have since gone through the ashes in the fireplace; there were remnants of clothing, a portion of a brim of a hat, and a skirt, and it appeared as if a large quantity of women's clothing had been burnt. ABBERLINEīS “CONTENTS” IS THE FIREPLACE AND ITīS CONTENTS.

[Coroner] Can you give any reason why they were burnt ? - I can only imagine that it was to make a light for the man to see what he was doing. There was only one small candle in the room, on the top of a broken wine-glass. ABBERLINEīS “CONTENTS” NOW INCLUDES A GLASS AND “A SMALL CANDLE”.

An impression has gone abroad that the murderer took away the key of the room. Barnett informs me that it has been missing some time, and since it has been lost they have put their hand through the broken window, and moved back the catch. It is quite easy. There was a man's clay pipe in the room, and Barnett informed me that he smoked it. ABBERLINE REFERS TO BARNETT.


[Coroner] Is there anything further the jury ought to know ?
- No; if there should be I can communicate with you, sir.

Source: http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...est_kelly.html

TO SUM UP: At the inquest, Abberline actually says ALMOST NOTHING about the contents of the room in 13 Millerīs Court.

In his descriptions of his own inventory of the contents of the room he can only speak about a fireplace, a glass and a candle.

The other statements are exclusively references to statements of other persons.

Also his opinion is that there is nothing further that the jury ought to know. (!!)

So someone has killed and mutilated a woman in 13 Millerīs Court and Abberline can only refer to others and describe a fireplace, a glass and a candle.

Why did Abberline say nothing about the victim, the bed, the tables, the doors, the windows and the partition in the room?

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

To describe this post as "nonsense" really doesn't do justice to it. It is beyond nonsensical.

It seems to be based on more of Pierre's misunderstandings.

Firstly, Pierre seems to think that Abberline ran through his inventory at the inquest. He did not. He simply gave evidence that he made an inventory.

Secondly, he seems to think that Abberline should have said something about "the victim". To the extent that he is referring to the mutilations or the cause of death, that was the job of the medical men. He didn't know anything else from his personal knowledge about the victim.

Thirdly, he seems to think that Abberline should also have said something about "the bed, the tables, the doors, the windows and the partition in the room?" I don't know why. Dr Phillips, who was the first person into Kelly's room, had already described the layout very clearly in his own evidence to the coroner. There was no need for that to be repeated. Abberline expressly confirmed that he agreed with the doctor's evidence. The jury had, in any event, already been taken to 13 Miller's Court, and seen the layout with their own eyes, so they didn't need a description of the room to be given to them.

So that's that.

THREAD CLOSED

[Pierre]

David spends a lot on time on my posts.

I ignore him so I donīt read his posts anymore since he is only trying to destroy what I say. That is OK by me but it is meaningless to read.

Recently David wrote in the forum that he would not be here much since he had work to do.

Obviously that wasnīt true.

He is still spending a lot of time on reading everything I write and commenting on it.

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

Recently David wrote in the forum that he would not be here much since he had work to do.

No I didn't Pierre. What I said was that I wouldn't be carrying out further JTR related research because I have other things to do. So that's yet one more thing you have misunderstood.

And you will have noticed - because you clearly are reading my posts - that I closed this thread in my previous post. I have not re-opened it, nor given you permission to make any further posts, so I'm sorry but you are not entitled to post in this thread any more.

THREAD NOW DEFINITELY CLOSED.

[Observer]

Why did Abberline say nothing about the victim, the bed, the tables, the doors, the windows and the partition in the room?

Regards Pierre

Hi Pierre

Abberline was famed for his reticence.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Let's also keep in mind that the inquest transcript we have are not from official sources, in this case they come from the Daily Telegraph. If Abberline did give more details about something a former witness said, it might well be truncated by the news editor.

Also, this particular coroner was famous/infamous for his hastiness.

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre

Abberline was famed for his reticence.

Hi,

Do you happen to have a source for that?

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Let's also keep in mind that the inquest transcript we have are not from official sources, in this case they come from the Daily Telegraph. If Abberline did give more details about something a former witness said, it might well be truncated by the news editor.

Also, this particular coroner was famous/infamous for his hastiness.

Yes. Do you know if the original inquest papers are available for reading anywhere?

Regards Pierre

[Varqm]

The silence of Abberline.

All Abberline did was survey the room and thought "there is no case against anybody.Maybe in 2015 with dna and fingerprints."

[Pierre]

The Chapman murder

Inspector Joseph Chandler testimony at the inquest for the Chapman murder is much, much more detailed than the testimony for the Kelly murder. Also, look at the Eddowes inquest. Much more details. Here is Chandler:

Joseph Chandler, Inspector H Division Metropolitan Police, deposed: On Saturday morning, at ten minutes past six, I was on duty in Commercial-street. At the corner of Hanbury-street I saw several men running. I beckoned to them. One of them said, "Another woman has been murdered." I at once went with him to 29, Hanbury-street, and through the passage into the yard. There was no one in the yard. I saw the body of a woman lying on the ground on her back. Her head was towards the back wall of the house, nearly two feet from the wall, at the bottom of the steps, but six or nine inches away from them. The face was turned to the right side, and the left arm was resting on the left breast. The right hand was lying down the right side. Deceased's legs were drawn up, and the clothing was above the knees. A portion of the intestines, still connected with the body, were lying above the right shoulder, with some pieces of skin. There were also some pieces of skin on the left shoulder. The body was lying parallel with the fencing dividing the two yards. I remained there and sent for the divisional surgeon, Mr. Phillips, and to the police-station for the ambulance and for further assistance. When the constables arrived I cleared the passage of people, and saw that no one touched the body until the doctor arrived. I obtained some sacking to cover it before the arrival of the surgeon, who came at about half- past six o'clock, and he, having examined the body, directed that it should be removed to the mortuary. After the body had been taken away I examined the yard, and found a piece of coarse muslin, a small tooth comb, and a pocket hair comb in a case. They were lying near the feet of the woman. A portion of an envelope was found near her head, which contained two pills.
[Coroner] What was on the envelope? - On the back there was a seal with the words, embossed in blue, "Sussex Regiment." The other part was torn away. On the other side there was a letter "M" in writing.
[Coroner] A man's handwriting? - I should imagine so.
[Coroner] Any postage stamp? - No. There was a postal stamp "London, Aug. 3, 1888." That was in red. There was another black stamp, which was indistinct.
[Coroner] Any other marks on the envelope? - There were also the letters "Sp" lower down, as if some one had written "Spitalfields." The other part was gone. There were no other marks.
[Coroner] Did you find anything else in the yard? - There was a leather apron, lying in the yard, saturated with water. It was about two feet from the water tap.
[Coroner] Was it shown to the doctor? - Yes. There was also a box, such as is commonly used by casemakers for holding nails. It was empty. There was also a piece of steel, flat, which has since been identified by Mrs. Richardson as the spring of her son's leggings.
[Coroner] Where was that found? - It was close to where the body had been. The apron and nail box have also been identified by her as her property. The yard was paved roughly with stones in parts; in other places it was earth.
[Coroner] Was there any appearance of a struggle there? - No.
[Coroner] Are the palings strongly erected? - No; to the contrary.
[Coroner] Could they support the weight of a man getting over them? - No doubt they might.
[Coroner] Is there any evidence of anybody having got over them? - No. Some of them in the adjoining yard have been broken since. They were not broken then.
[Coroner] You have examined the adjoining yard? - Yes.
[Coroner] Was there any staining as of blood on any of the palings? - Yes, near the body.
[Coroner] Was it on any of the other yards? - No.
[Coroner] Were there no other marks? - There were marks discovered on the wall of No. 25. They were noticed on Tuesday afternoon. They have been seen by Dr. Phillips.
[Coroner] Were there any drops of blood outside the yard of No. 29? - No; every possible examination has been made, but we could find no trace of them. The blood-stains at No. 29 were in the immediate neighbourhood of the body only. There were also a few spots of blood on the back wall, near the head of the deceased, 2ft from the ground. The largest spot was of the size of a sixpence. They were all close together. I assisted in the preparation of the plan produced, which is correct.
[Coroner] Did you search the body? - I searched the clothing at the mortuary. The outside jacket - a long black one, which came down to the knees - had bloodstains round the neck, both upon the inside and out, and two or three spots on the left arm. The jacket was hooked at the top, and buttoned down the front. By the appearance of the garment there did not seem to have been any struggle. A large pocket was worn under the skirt (attached by strings), which I produce. It was torn down the front and also at the side, and it was empty. Deceased wore a black skirt. There was a little blood on the outside. The two petticoats were stained very little; the two bodices were stained with blood round the neck, but they had not been damaged. There was no cut in the clothing at all. The boots were on the feet of deceased. They were old. No part of the clothing was torn. The stockings were not bloodstained.
[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.
[Coroner] Did he say that he was sure the woman was not there at that time? - Yes.
By the Jury: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.

http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_chapman.html

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

Let's also keep in mind that the inquest transcript we have are not from official sources, in this case they come from the Daily Telegraph.

Although Pierre has chosen to quote from the Daily Telegraph, the official inquest papers are held at the London Metropolitan Archives and are reproduced in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook by Evans & Skinner.

[David Orsam]

Inspector Joseph Chandler testimony at the inquest for the Chapman murder is much, much more detailed than the testimony for the Kelly murder.

So Chandler was asked more questions by the coroner and the jury in the Chapman inquest than Abberline was at the Kelly inquest. What point do you think you are making by that?

[Brenda]

.

Yet another Pierre thread....I'm close to giving up here.

[Rosella]

^ These inquests were presided over by two very different coroners though, (who were great rivals.) Wynne Baxter was expansive and inclined to let witnesses have their head and to explore different theories ie uteri. MacDonald was a very different kettle of fish and ran a very tight ship. People gave their testimony and then left the witness box, no hanging about.

[GUT]

The silence of Abberline.

All Abberline did was survey the room and thought "there is no case against anybody.Maybe in 2015 with dna and fingerprints."

Or Pierre's data