The silence of Abberline

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I wasn't hinting.

It was a statement of fact.

But if you can't spot it . . .

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

I wasn't hinting.

It was a statement of fact.

But if you can't spot it . . .

I see that I typed "Chandler" at one point when I meant "Collard", as is obvious from the context.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;376980]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.

This shows the importance of using primary sources.

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.

If you want to challenge me you should at least give the correct policeman for the correct victim.

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.

You should also care to turn the page when you read:

"Her head, neck and shoulders were lying in a pool of blood on each side of her, nothing in front - no appearance of any struggle having taken place _ I made an examination round to see if there was any struggle, no trace whatever - nothing to lead to suppose there had been any struggle either in the appearance of the woman or her clothes. The blood was in a liquid state not congealed - In my opinion from what I saw I should say that the body had not been there more than 1/4 of an hour..." (p. 226).

So you are wrong again, David.

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.

Ah! The explanation of "the special case". To make an idiographic explanation to every single event is to forget about the pattern which shows that Abberline and Beck were the exceptions!

The other officers you mention (Neil, Chandler, Lamb and Watkins) were all the first officers to arrive on the scene

Just like Beck. But he was very, very silent. Every policeman who entered room 13 was silent.

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.

In the case of absence of original inquest papers and primary sources produced by the police, as you see, we have no choice. So it is either our silence about their silence or not. I do not like it, but it is not Christmas yet, so we can make no wish lists for the sources we would like to possess.

As John has already mentioned, in the case of Kelly, the doctor and police entered the room at the same time.

Since the "neatly folded clothes" (if this is the John you refer to) I tend not to listen very much to him as a source for 1888.

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.

A functional explanation! "The statement of Abberline would have no function, so he remained silent". And all the other doctors, who gave their evidence at the inquests of the rest of the victims? - well, you take my point.

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

Behind closed doors. Outside of the court room. And Abberline could remain silent.

(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."

Newspapers again. And still, in this case we do have the original inquest sources.

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."

More newspapers. Why? You have the original sources. If you want to use the papers you must do a comparative analysis of those.

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

It does not answer one single question, David. But donīt hesitate to come back to me if you need any further assistance with the comparative analyses of your newspapers!

Kind regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Pierre, I must humbly beg your pardon for typing "Inspector Chandler" when I meant "Inspector Collard", something I had actually noted, with Simon's help, some seven minutes before you posted, but it was, I think, obvious what I meant from the context, having referred to Collard later in the same paragraph.

When I mentioned the glass only being referred to in a newspaper, you say: "This shows the importance of using primary sources.". Indeed. What it shows is that you need to use all sources, including newspapers, which in this case are a primary source.

You refer to Inspector Collard speaking about the blood next to the body of Eddowes but I really don't know what point you think you are actually making about this. As you can see from the deposition, the inspector was answering questions he was being asked by city solicitor, Mr Crawford. I don't see him "describing the body". The questions and his answers went to whether the blood was in a liquid state or congealed and thus to the time of death, something that only the inspector could speak to as at that moment in time, and to whether he thought there had been a struggle. But that is what happens at an inquest. Questions are asked and answered by the witness. If Abberline didn't say anything about the body it's because he wasn't asked about it. So, you see, Pierre, I'm not wrong at all. It only supports the response I have given you.

And this is why your statement that "Every policeman who entered room 13 was silent." is utterly ridiculous and absurd. Inspector Abberline was not silent at all. He appeared to testify at the inquest and was there to answer any questions asked of him. Equally absurd is your comment that "The statement of Abberline would have no function, so he remained silent". He did not remain silent at all. It's just plain wrong and daft to say so. He testified at the inquest and answered all questions asked of him. That's how it works Pierre. Witnesses do not go into the witness box to tell a story and talk about whatever they want to. They are asked specific questions, and they are expected to answer them.

You say: "And all the other doctors, who gave their evidence at the inquests of the rest of the victims? - well, you take my point.". No I don't take your point Pierre, what exactly is it?

Your remark, "Behind closed doors. Outside of the court room. And Abberline could remain silent" is another ridiculous one. The inspector spoke to the jury inside room 13 in the presence of a newspaper reporter. There just wasn't anything interesting or important to report.

At one point you say: "More newspapers. Why? You have the original sources.". That question seems to reveal an ignorance of what the "original sources" are. They do NOT contain a record of everything that was said at the inquest. For that we need to rely on newspapers.

Finally, you say "It does not answer one single question, David." I appreciate that you don't like me answering your questions but I have answered them in full. I have explained why Abberline mentioned the grate, the candle and the glass (but not other items in the room) and you have had precisely nothing to say about that. I explained why Abberline was not required to speak about the position of the body at the inquest because that was covered in full by the doctor. I explained why other officers referred to the position of body of the victims in their evidence because these were officers who found the body. You may not like it but that's the answer.

Now, Pierre, having tried to pick up and respond to all your petty and, let's face it, rather childish points, let's get down to the actual issue. What is it you think that Inspector Abberline could possibly have said about the body that Dr Phillips did not inform the jury when he gave evidence? What is the important missing evidence about the body that was being withheld?

If there was no important evidence missing just what are you trying to get at?

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;377020]

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 -

This shows the importance of using primary sources.

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



If you want to challenge me you should at least give the correct policeman for the correct victim.



You should also care to turn the page when you read:

"Her head, neck and shoulders were lying in a pool of blood on each side of her, nothing in front - no appearance of any struggle having taken place _ I made an examination round to see if there was any struggle, no trace whatever - nothing to lead to suppose there had been any struggle either in the appearance of the woman or her clothes. The blood was in a liquid state not congealed - In my opinion from what I saw I should say that the body had not been there more than 1/4 of an hour..." (p. 226).

So you are wrong again, David.



Ah! The explanation of "the special case". To make an idiographic explanation to every single event is to forget about the pattern which shows that Abberline and Beck were the exceptions!



Just like Beck. But he was very, very silent. Every policeman who entered room 13 was silent.

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.



In the case of absence of original inquest papers and primary sources produced by the police, as you see, we have no choice. So it is either our silence about their silence or not. I do not like it, but it is not Christmas yet, so we can make no wish lists for the sources we would like to possess.


Since the "neatly folded clothes" (if this is the John you refer to) I tend not to listen very much to him as a source for 1888.



A functional explanation! "The statement of Abberline would have no function, so he remained silent". And all the other doctors, who gave their evidence at the inquests of the rest of the victims? - well, you take my point.

In any case, the jury were informed by Abberline (or Beck) about the condition of the body.

Behind closed doors. Outside of the court room. And Abberline could remain silent.

(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."

Newspapers again. And still, in this case we do have the original inquest sources.



More newspapers. Why? You have the original sources. If you want to use the papers you must do a comparative analysis of those.



It does not answer one single question, David. But donīt hesitate to come back to me if you need any further assistance with the comparative analyses of your newspapers!

Kind regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

Unfortunately, you seem to be getting terribly confused again: in the matter of the doctor and the police entering the room at the same time, David is clearly referring to a post of Jon Guy's not mine. In fact, I have at no time made any reference to the matter, which anyone concerned with "facts" would presumably have noticed.

Regarding the folded clothes, Martin Fido, in Crimes Detection and Death, p93, found some supporting evidence from a drawing in Reynolds Newspaper:

"A drawing in Reynolds Newspaper for 18 November shows that Kelly's clothes were on the broken back chair"

On the other hand, the Daily Telegraph, November 10, stated that "her garments, including a velvet bodice, were arranged by the fireplace."

And, yes, I do occasionally make mistakes but, thankfully, I haven't yet suggested that the cachous, found grasped by Liz Stride, are an important clue on the grounds that "cachous" is a near homonyn for cautious!

Unfortunately, the name of the poster that made that odd association escapes me at the moment!

[Errata]

And, yes, I do occasionally make mistakes but, thankfully, I haven't yet suggested that the cachous, found grasped by Liz Stride, are an important clue on the grounds that "cachous" is a near homonyn for cautious!

Unfortunately, the name of the poster that made that odd association escapes me at the moment!

Where was I for that one? I could have lived for YEARS off that kind of nonsense. I would be referencing that idea every five minute to this day. What an absolutely stunning example of Conspiracist thinking. That is pure glory.

[Elamarna]

Where was I for that one? I could have lived for YEARS off that kind of nonsense. I would be referencing that idea every five minute to this day. What an absolutely stunning example of Conspiracist thinking. That is pure glory.

Errata we had a whole thread on that one

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9378

steve

[Errata]

Errata we had a whole thread on that one

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9378

steve

I always miss the good stuff.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I think the OP is Pierre's way of declaring his suspect/murderer. The man who in Pierre's words would not be a popular killer among the JTR fraternity.

Abberline could well be Pierre's man.

[The Station Cat]

His silence is one thing. But what really amazes me is that there are no photographs of him (that I am aware of anyway?).

[Pcdunn]

Umm-- no, not really...

His silence is one thing. But what really amazes me is that there are no photographs of him (that I am aware of anyway?).

I believe one of the Ripperologists did turn up a group photo featuring someone identified as the mysterious Abbeline. Was it Rumbelow? Anyway, I've seen it in a book.

[DJA]

https://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F6%2F6b%2FABBERLINE-CROP.jpg%2F170px-ABBERLINE-CROP.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFrederick_Abberline&docid=Hcp2pNQq7rdQ8M&tbnid=4bDDvngmtnLtWM%3A&w=170&h=446&bih=839&biw=1687&ved=0ahUKEwi55v2o6q7MAhUjG6YKHQQhB0wQMwgqKA4wDg&iact=mrc&uact=8

[Fisherman]

I believe one of the Ripperologists did turn up a group photo featuring someone identified as the mysterious Abbeline. Was it Rumbelow? Anyway, I've seen it in a book.

Heīs been identified several times - but itīs never the same guy...

[DJA]

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5826

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Baker

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Wood_(film)

With the interest in a new Sherlock Holmes movie........never know who is posting here

[Jon Guy]

I believe one of the Ripperologists did turn up a group photo featuring someone identified as the mysterious Abbeline. Was it Rumbelow? Anyway, I've seen it in a book.

This is a link to previous discussions and Rob House seems to have identified Abberline.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6975