PC Amos Simpson

[Amanda]

Double checked....

I've finally been able to check this Amanda, and sadly, I don't think it's right.

Jane Simpson née Wilkins was born (according to all later censuses) in Bourton-on-the-water in Gloucs. circa 1848.

Your Jane Wilkins was born circa 1848 in Gloucester, so highly likely. However in the 1871 census there's also a Jane Wilkins born circa 1848 and born at Bourton so slightly more likely.

The clincher, I would suggest, is that this Jane Wilkins worked as a housemaid for John and Elizabeth Bundy, 46 Crowndale Road, St Pancras. An Elizabeth Bundy signed the marriage register as a witness when Amos and Jane married and Jane was resident in St Pancras.

So, I suspect that the Mocatta source for the shawl probably isn't going to work.

Hi Mick,
I've finally been able to open the original images for the census reports. Will try to explain my findings here:

On the 1851 Census transcript - Jane Wilkins shown as born 1847 in Gloucester - the actual report states Bourton on the Water.
Note - after 1851 rounding down of ages was dropped, so thereafter Jane is shown as being born in 1848.

On the 1861 Census transcript - Jane Wilkins shown as born in Branton, Gloucs, but when you read the original it clearly says Bourton on the Water.

Also on the 1861 census - another Jane Wilkins born in Wiltshire (note that by coincidence her parents were also called Henry & Jane).

On the 1871 Census there is another Jane Wilkins born in 1848 working as a housemaid in St.Pancras but she was born in Middlesex.

Now it gets interesting...
I have contacted the National Archives & found that the 1871 Census form was sent out on 2nd April, however, due to the shear quantity of work, the enumerator took nearly 4.5 months to collect and complete the report.

In summing up, I put it to you learned friend, that there was possibly only ONE Jane Wilkins born in Gloucestershire in 1848, and she possibly changed her employment in between census forms being returned.

Note I said possibly, but not entirely impossible.
Looking forward to your feedback,
Amanda

[Monty]

Again, in my book...

...Metropolitan Police did not permit wives of their constables to have jobs.

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Here's Cheshunt Police Station on Turner's Hill from the 1890 Hertfordshire Post Office Directory.

It's complement was 2 Inspectors, 2 Sergeants, 3 Acting Sergeants and 23 Constables.



Hope it helps.

Regards,

Simon

[Robert]

Hi Amanda

As I understand it, Monty and Ed have determined that in 1888 Amos was living in Cheshunt and attached to Cheshunt Police Station. They are now looking through the records to try to ascertain whether he could have been on 'special duties.'

[MrBarnett]

Hello MrB

I suspect that John Bundy, trunk maker was this bloke:

http://www.drennan.co/item.php?id=379&category=1

Great find, Mick. No doubt quite a skilled craftsman.

I wonder what's inside it?

MrB

[GUT]

Hi Guys,

Just had another one of my 'light bulb' moments.

Does anyone know where Amos Simpson was working on 29th September, the night Catherine Eddowes was arrested ?

Amanda

I suspect that if we knew that t would have been bought to light in that other thread, you know the one with thousands of posts about DNA.

[Amanda]

Light bulb moment....

Hi Guys,

Just had another one of my 'light bulb' moments.

Does anyone know where Amos Simpson was working on 29th September, the night Catherine Eddowes was arrested ?

Amanda

[mickreed]

Hi Mick,

No, this isn't the lady who later lived in Gough (not Goodge, my error) Street.

When I saw 'trunk maker' I thought of a manual worker, but that doesn't tie in with his daughter's being a fundholder and leaving such a tidy sum in her will.

Probably no point in continuing this line of enquiry. It might be more productive to investigate possible connections between PC Long and Amos Simpson.

MrB

Hello MrB

I suspect that John Bundy, trunk maker was this bloke:

http://www.drennan.co/item.php?id=379&category=1

[MrBarnett]

Hi Mick,

No, this isn't the lady who later lived in Gough (not Goodge, my error) Street.

When I saw 'trunk maker' I thought of a manual worker, but that doesn't tie in with his daughter's being a fundholder and leaving such a tidy sum in her will.

Probably no point in continuing this line of enquiry. It might be more productive to investigate possible connections between PC Long and Amos Simpson.

MrB

[Theagenes]

I made a mistake. In 1871, Jane was a housemaid with Elizabeth E Bundy and her father John, not husband as I'd said. The witness at the wedding in 1874 was Elizabeth E Bundy.

In 1871, John was a retired trunkmaker and his daughter's occupation was not given. However, she was unmarried. Ten years earlier, her occupation had been given as 'fundholder'. She died, not long after the wedding in 1874. She was not short of a quid as her attached probate calendar shows. Note she was still living at the same address as in 1871 when Jane worked for her.

Ah well, that's takes care of that. It's still possible, of course, that Jane Simpson may have still been that charwoman, doing part time domestic work in 1892, but if her employer wasn't Bundy, then there's no way we could ever confirm it probably. All we're left with is an interesting coincidence.

[mickreed]

Looking at the censuses for the Bundys (her husband was Ted, BTW) they seem to have a connection to the legal profession, inasmuch as they appear to have had two lodgers who were law writers and one of their sons was a law stationers assistant. Fleet Street, where the Cheshire Cheese is located, is very close to The Temple and Lincolns Inn, so in that respect perhaps not such a red herring after all. However a law writer is not an journalist. And Jane Wilkins employer was not the lady with the lawyerly lodgers, so there is a bit of a fishy reek hanging over it all.

Having said that, EB is not a very common name and the two women may be connected in some way...

MrB

I made a mistake. In 1871, Jane was a housemaid with Elizabeth E Bundy and her father John, not husband as I'd said. The witness at the wedding in 1874 was Elizabeth E Bundy.

In 1871, John was a retired trunkmaker and his daughter's occupation was not given. However, she was unmarried. Ten years earlier, her occupation had been given as 'fundholder'. She died, not long after the wedding in 1874. She was not short of a quid as her attached probate calendar shows. Note she was still living at the same address as in 1871 when Jane worked for her.

[mickreed]

There's nothing in the magazine article about the woman "going out charring" either -- only that she was employed by the landlady of a newspaper man.

Well, no, except that a 'charwoman' was normally someone who was hired for short periods to do cleaning, rather than a permanent employee. Charladies would usually have several 'employers' and would do the rounds of them during their working day or week.

However, it's true that the words could be used more loosely.

No we don't, but we do know that they remained in contact up until they were married because of the witnessing. What year was that?

1874 - three years after the census was taken.

It doesn't really matter how close the Simpsons lived to the Cheese. There is nothing in the story connecting the charwoman or the landlady to the Cheese -- that's just where the journalist who was lodging with the landlady was hanging out.

Fair enough.

What matters is trying to find out if Jane Simpson was still doing domestic work in 1892 and if so, did her employer (whether Bundy or someone else) have a lodger that was a journalist or newspaper man.

All we know, so far, is that the Simpsons were living at Gews Corner in Cheshunt in 1891. Jane's occupation is not given. I doubt we will get better than that, but yes, it's worth checking out.

[mickreed]

Hello Mick , was it along the lines of "Thought he was sweating but he pissed the bed " . Not heard that in years

Moonbegger .

Along those lines, Moonbeggar, yes.

[Robert]

Hi Ghost

I think one objection would be, that the police would be unlikely to cover up the existence of the shawl from each other. After all, the list of Eddowes's possessions was not, as far as I am aware, made public.

Another objection is, while we don't know how much the police would have known about Judaism, if they knew enough about it to recognize the shawl as a prayer shawl, then surely they'd have made discreet enquiries to see if any Jewish woman had lost her shawl (since they'd have known that Eddowes wasn't Jewish). Either Eddowes had come into possession of it somehow, or her killer had given it to her. Either way, I think the police would have tried to found out the history of the shawl.

All of that, of course, assumes that the shawl was in the Square, and that is a big 'if.'

[Ghost]

Hi Ghost

There was no writing above the body. The writing erased was above the apron, in Goulston St.

Thank you, Robert.

Just to clarify my overall point ...

Suppose the "shawl" is a Jewish prayer scarf, or a garment of Jewish and/or Russian/Polish origin. And it is found by police at the Eddowes crime scene.

We know that the police were afraid of anti-Jewish rioting. That is why police washed away the graffiti. They decided to alter/lose/hide from the public potential evidence because they worried that it would inflame the situation.

Given that mindset, what would police do with a (possible) Jewish garment found at the crime scene? I would assume they would be worried it would spark rioting. Given their actions, it's quite possible that they would cover up its existence. That would explain why the shawl would be missing from the official record of objects found at the crime scene.

If that were the case, what would they do with it? Possibly give it to one of the policemen present. Perhaps Amos Simpson. Or perhaps someone else that ended up giving it to Simpson.