Burgho and Barnaby

[JennyL]

I was just now reading with fascination the article from the Echo of 11/13/88, directed there from a reference in the "Hutch and an alibi" thread.

And what do you know--here they are again, two of my favorite peripheral names in the JtR lore to come across--Burgho and Barnaby.
Now at least I have an answer to a question I didn't understand--why in the hell they weren't ever brought to Mary Kelly's room after that long wait by authorities on the morning[answer: one was at a show out of town and the other seems to have been held up as not having been paid for!].

So as a dog lover and after seeing so many detailed genologies for the many victims/witnesses etc., I couldn't help indulging in this whimsical thought: where are the descendents of those bloodhounds today? I'm sure they came from top stock (one at a show not being available for the MJK enquiry)...and I got a kick out of looking up the august family lineage of our AKC labrador.

I know it's ridiculous and I was going to put this under Pub Talk but, well, it is part of the story.
A bit.
So...I guess there would be a way to look it up, wouldn't there? Imagine owning the direct descendent of Burgho--the dog who didn't solve the Whitechapel murders! And hey--didn't these two(or similar) get involved in the Torso investigation?
Just tossing it out there and wondering if this has ever occurred to anyone else. I'll slink away now...


Jenny

[sdreid]

Yes, I agree that not using them at Miller's could have been the case's greatest missed opportunity. What else was on their schedule that day, eating and sleeping?

[Barnaby]

Wasn't Burgho at a dog show and unavailable?

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Jenny L!

Not a bad idea at all to start a thread about this subject!


I have to add this question to the conversation;

When did the police force started to use dogs for the crime investigation and where?!

Based on the things you mentioned I have been thinking, that this case was - if not the very first - one of the first cases in the UK!

All the best
Jukka

[Jon Guy]

Hello

It would have been interesting if the bloodhounds had been deployed from Goulston St. Working in favour for the dogs would have been the strong scent on the rag, the fact that not many people would have crossed the path of the killer at that time, and also the killer may not have gone much further than the immediate streets.

Hi Jukka

A Whitechapel workman first suggested the use of dogs in The Star on the 8th Sept.

On 12th Sept a Mr Ashworth of Nottingham wrote to Charles Warren to draw his attention to the case of William Fish in 1876,when Ashworth urged the Lancashire Police to use dogs, which they did and uncovered new evidence that led to a conviction.

[perrymason]

Hi all,

I believe only 1 of the 2 dogs were still in London when Mary was killed, 1 was hired out as I recall and neither were on call for the police..... the requests for funds to buy the dogs outright or extend a lease arrangement were denied. Perhaps Warrens "test" mishap influenced that call.

It does make one wonder how well information was disseminating down through the rank and file when the wait to open room 13, were told, for bloodhounds that would certainly not have been dispatched.

All the best.

[Jon Guy]

I believe only 1 of the 2 dogs were still in London when Mary was killed, 1 was hired out as I recall and neither were on call for the police..... the requests for funds to buy the dogs outright or extend a lease arrangement were denied. Perhaps Warrens "test" mishap influenced that call.

Hi Mike

Both dogs had been withdrawn by November as the owner wanted some kind of insurance. The Home Office were willing to sanction the extra money but the dog`s had gone before they got their sh#t together.

The Warren mishap is a myth. The trials in Regents Park and Hyde Park were extremely successful, and the police, press and public alike were all very enthusiastic.

[perrymason]

Hi Jon,

I find it interesting that you mentioned they were unavailable in your second post.

The trials in Regents Park on October the 9th were successful, however the trials the next day at Hyde Park, where Warren played "fox", werent. By October 19th Barnaby was back in Mr Brough's hands, Burgho was being trained in Hemel Hampstead by a Mr Edward Taunton.

Seems no-one told the rank and file, eh?

Best regards

[Jon Guy]

Hi Mike

The dogs were successful at all three run outs. You must be thinking of the Tooting Common myth.

I only mentioned their availability in the second post, as it was in reply to your post stating that one of the dogs was in town.

[perrymason]

Hi Mike

The dogs were successful at all three run outs. You must be thinking of the Tooting Common myth.

I only mentioned their availability in the second post, as it was in reply to your post stating that one of the dogs was in town.

Hey John,

Tooting Common......I like that. A-Z is where I got the stance on the success at the venues and the pooches. There's lots of sources for the episode with Warren as being a failure also...so Im not sure where your contention that they were "successful" in the trials comes from.

Cheers mate.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Mike

Sugden, and Daily News, Oct 10th are my sources for the successful trials.

Arnold`s decision to keep 13 Millers Court free of scent whilst he sent for the dogs was based on an incident at the end of October when Mr Taunton was asked to bring the dog to Leman St Police Station as there had been a robbery at 05.00 am that morning in premises on Commercial St. When he and the dog arrived at the premises Arnold admitted that they had been all over the premises. Mr Taunton seems to have lost it with them and asked how on earth the dog was going to track the thief, and promptly left with the dog. The owner was told about the incident and fearing for it`s safety recalled the dog.

[JennyL]

Here's the pertinent portion of the Echo from November 11, 1888. It goes into detail about the dogs:

WHY THE BLOODHOUNDS WERE NOT USED.
This is the reason why the bloodhounds were not used. At Sir Charles Warren's request Mr. Brough, bloodhound breeder, of Scarborough, brought his two dogs, Burgho and Barnaby, to London. Arrangements were made for the immediate conveyance of the animals to the spot in the event of another murder occurring, and in order to facilitate matters Mr. Brough left the hounds in the care of a friends [sic] of his, Mr. Taunton, of Doughty-street, who was entrusted with their custody pending the conclusion of the negotiations for the ultimate purchase of the dogs. Sir Charles Warren, however, would not, so it is said, give any definite assurance on this point, and Mr. Brough insisted on resuming possession of the animals. One of them, Burgho, was sent to a show at Brighton, the other remaining in Mr. Taunton's custody. About a fortnight ago this gentleman received a telegram from Leman-street Police-station, asking him to bring the dog to assist in discovering the perpetrators of a burglary in Commercial-street. The police then admitted that subsequent to the burglary they had been all over the premises, and Mr. Taunton pointed out to them that it was absurd to expect that the bloodhounds could accomplish anything under such conditions. The owner of the dogs, on learning these facts, telegraphed insisting that Barnaby should be returned to him, he having no guarantee of compensation in case of the animal suffering maltreatment. Thus as a fact there has been no trained bloodhound in the Metropolis during the past fortnight.

I have to say that I don't understand why the incompetent handling of the burglary would cause the owner to be afraid of any "maltreatment" of his dog(s), does anyone else?

In any case the dogs were "sent for" but clearly they weren't even in London--there was in fact only one of the dogs that had even the potential to be there, the other one having been sent away to a ahow beforehand. Why it took precious hours for that to be found out is odd. I'd have thought the communications between the detectives etc. at this juncture would have meant pretty fast answers about these things.

[perrymason]

Here's the pertinent portion of the Echo from November 11, 1888. It goes into detail about the dogs:



I have to say that I don't understand why the incompetent handling of the burglary would cause the owner to be afraid of any "maltreatment" of his dog(s), does anyone else?

In any case the dogs were "sent for" but clearly they weren't even in London--there was in fact only one of the dogs that had even the potential to be there, the other one having been sent away to a ahow beforehand. Why it took precious hours for that to be found out is odd. I'd have thought the communications between the detectives etc. at this juncture would have meant pretty fast answers about these things.

I think what you hit upon Jemmy is that many of the officers in senior positions involved with that crime scene were not appraised of issues regarding the investigations of the cases and their progress or the tools being utilized to track the killer or killers.

There was not, at least in this instance, a sharing of information across the Metropolitan forces of related information on the Ripper crimes. Including Abberline. he was not in the loop on this. Their footsoldier returned to his place of many Fenian arrests to hunt the killer....and he doesnt know what has or has not been decided about some matters.

I think this may be the tip of the iceberg on infoshare issues...I think bigger fish were frying than some Unfortunate murders, and only THE most senior men released information down the ranks. It was filtered.

Cheers Jenny

[Jon Guy]

I have to say that I don't understand why the incompetent handling of the burglary would cause the owner to be afraid of any "maltreatment" of his dog(s), does anyone else?

Hi Jenny

They were worried that criminals would harm the dogs.

Ironically, we have just had a case where a f#ckwit dog handler for the Nottingham Constabulary killed two police dogs by leaving them in a vehicle parked outside the police station on the hottest day of the year. As an aside, the RSPCA are prosecuting, and hopefully will result in that person not been allowed near animals again. Sorry about the outburst

The delay in entering number 13 that Friday morning was only for a couple of hours, and as communications were primitive, two hours seems reasonable if it was a case of requesting the dogs by telegraph, and the answer getting back by runner to Dorset St. Arnold did the right thing, the girl was dead, and it was worth a go considering the excellent results with the dog trials.

The last dog was only withdrawn from the capital a little more than a week before the murder, and it seems the owner did not inform the authorities.

[Sam Flynn]

The last dog was only withdrawn from the capital a little more than a week before the murder, and it seems the owner did not inform the authorities.

... that's what you call "Brough justice"