PC Amos Simpson

[Theagenes]

So early on in the DNA thread a link was posted to an older discussion about a collector's magazine from 1892 that mentions a charwoman shopping around a shawl that supposedly belonged to one of the victims. Here it is:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5947&highlight=charwoman

Edwards mentions this in the book and his source was no doubt this thread. It's a tenuous link for a number of reasons, but since we know that Jane Simpson was in fact employed as a cleaning lady, it raises the possibility that she could be the charwoman in question. And could the landlady in the story be Elizabeth Bundy? Is there any way to know if the Bundys rented rooms or owned a lodging house?

[Ghost]

So, let's entertain an idea .... Suppose it is an object of Jewish origin, or possibly that .... this is the killing where they erase the graffiti above the body, correct?

Would a police cover-up, for fear of anti-Jewish rioting, not adequately explain its absence from the records?

Obviously just a theory.

[Robert]

Hi Ghost

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

[Amanda]

Could you check...

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,
Something feels weird about this....TWO Jane Wilkins, BOTH born in Gloucestershire, in the SAME year, happen to be working streets away from each other in London....

Any chance you could have a look at both 1871 Census returns (for both Janes) and see which quarter the census reports were done. There is a chance that she moved employment within that year & appears on both reports.
(Sorry, would do it myself but I'm overseas & those images takes ages to open here)
(Perhaps she got sacked from the Mocatta's for nicking a shawl !! - )

Amanda

[mickreed]

So early on in the DNA thread a link was posted to an older discussion about a collector's magazine from 1892 that mentions a charwoman shopping around a shawl that supposedly belonged to one of the victims. Here it is:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5947&highlight=charwoman

Edwards mentions this in the book and his source was no doubt this thread. It's a tenuous link for a number of reasons, but since we know that Jane Simpson was in fact employed as a cleaning lady, it raises the possibility that she could be the charwoman in question. And could the landlady in the story be Elizabeth Bundy? Is there any way to know if the Bundys rented rooms or owned a lodging house?

Well, the murders were in 1888, the Collector story was 1892. So far as we know, the Simpsons had been living in Cheshunt for some 4 or 5 years prior to the murders. So far as the other questions are concerned, I'll have a look tomorrow.

[mickreed]

Hi Mick,
Something feels weird about this....TWO Jane Wilkins, BOTH born in Gloucestershire, in the SAME year, happen to be working streets away from each other in London....

Any chance you could have a look at both 1871 Census returns (for both Janes) and see which quarter the census reports were done. There is a chance that she moved employment within that year & appears on both reports.
(Sorry, would do it myself but I'm overseas & those images takes ages to open here)
(Perhaps she got sacked from the Mocatta's for nicking a shawl !! - )

Amanda

I've got both census forms. They are quite different and should have been done on the same night, 2 April 1871.

Now, of course, you can't believe everything you read on any historical document, especially census forms, due to the process involved. However I am sure that the St Pancras Jane is our Jane. Too much coincidence that she's working for an Elizabeth Bundy and someone of that name is witness at her wedding 2 years later. Possible but highly unlikely.

Hypotheses for the other one.

1. Jane really did work at both places and somehow got entered in error at one of them. I very much doubt it.

2. Mocatta Jane - Madame Mocatta, or more likely a senior servant, filled in the census form, never spoke to anyone, and just put down whatever s/he felt like. 'Where was Jane born? Stuffed if I know, I'll put down Gloucester'. Or something similar.

3. The census enumerator when transferring the info from the form onto the schedule (which is all we get to see) simply makes a transcription error. Mistook Glamorgan for Gloucester perhaps.

4. There really were two Janes as recorded.

[MrBarnett]

So early on in the DNA thread a link was posted to an older discussion about a collector's magazine from 1892 that mentions a charwoman shopping around a shawl that supposedly belonged to one of the victims. Here it is:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5947&highlight=charwoman

Edwards mentions this in the book and his source was no doubt this thread. It's a tenuous link for a number of reasons, but since we know that Jane Simpson was in fact employed as a cleaning lady, it raises the possibility that she could be the charwoman in question. And could the landlady in the story be Elizabeth Bundy? Is there any way to know if the Bundys rented rooms or owned a lodging house?

There was an Elizabeth Bundy living at 34 Goodge Street in 1891. She is described as a domestic. Also living at no 34. Was Alfred Evison, a Legal Writer.

Looks promising.

MrB

[mickreed]

Edwards mentions this in the book and his source was no doubt this thread. It's a tenuous link for a number of reasons, but since we know that Jane Simpson was in fact employed as a cleaning lady, it raises the possibility that she could be the charwoman in question. And could the landlady in the story be Elizabeth Bundy? Is there any way to know if the Bundys rented rooms or owned a lodging house?

Mmmm.

She wasn't exactly a 'cleaning lady'. In 1871 when she's living with the Bundys, she's a 'housemaid'. She'd have cleaned there no doubt, but wouldn't have gone out charring.

Then she marries Amos and we don't know what she did. Became the conventional housewife, or went out to do part-time work. We just don't know.

So the collector story is 20 years after her last known occupation. Plus the Cheshire Cheese, where the story was set, was a long way from Cheshunt. BTW Edwards contact. David Melville Hayes, said he 'thought' Amos had a son or nephew or or something who worked at the Cheese.

There's an awful lot of 'thought' in that book. As my old dad used to say … 'you know what thought did...'. It was many years before I found the answer to that.

[MrBarnett]

Mick,

Followed a muck cart...?

MrB

[moonbegger]

As my old dad used to say … 'you know what thought did...'. It was many years before I found the answer to that.

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

Moonbegger .

[MrBarnett]

There was an Elizabeth Bundy living at 34 Goodge Street in 1891. She is described as a domestic. Also living at no 34. Was Alfred Evison, a Legal Writer.

Looks promising.

MrB

I don't think this Elizabeth Bundy is the same as the one for whom Jane Wilkins was working in 1871. There was another EB living in Took's Court in 1871 who seems a better fit.

MrB

[Theagenes]

Mmmm.

She wasn't exactly a 'cleaning lady'. In 1871 when she's living with the Bundys, she's a 'housemaid'. She'd have cleaned there no doubt, but wouldn't have gone out charring.

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.

Then she marries Amos and we don't know what she did. Became the conventional housewife, or went out to do part-time work. We just don't know.

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?

So the collector story is 20 years after her last known occupation. Plus the Cheshire Cheese, where the story was set, was a long way from Cheshunt. BTW Edwards contact. David Melville Hayes, said he 'thought' Amos had a son or nephew or or something who worked at the Cheese.

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.

There's an awful lot of 'thought' in that book. As my old dad used to say … 'you know what thought did...'. It was many years before I found the answer to that.

This isn't about Edwards' book. I agree the story by Hayes is dubious and beyond that, Edwards is only repeating what he read in the above thread.

The Cheese is a red herring. 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.

[Theagenes]

I don't think this Elizabeth Bundy is the same as the one for whom Jane Wilkins was working in 1871. There was another EB living in Took's Court in 1871 who seems a better fit.

MrB

Too bad -- that did sound promising.

[MrBarnett]

Too bad -- that did sound promising.

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

[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.