PC Amos Simpson

[MrBarnett]

Hi Amanda,

Are you sure the delay was in collecting the data and not collating it?

MrB

[nashwan]

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

Hi Amanda,

I've checked the 1871 Census Enumerators' Description for the District and there doesn't appear to be any date given for which the enumerator certified his schedule, which appears to be the practice for at least the 1841 & 1891 censuses (or censi). It could just be that it was missed out when microfilming or when scanning the microfilms (by Ancestry). findmypast don't appear to include the ED at all. In the couple of samples I have looked at though the enumerator has finished writing up the schedules within a week or so and the Registrar and Superintendent Registrar have examined them within about a month of the supposed date of the census.

I have seen though in the past whole streets enumerated twice and possibly the lone individual as well.

I took a quick look at some of the occupants at Abraham Mocatta's dwelling house to see if they had also been recorded twice. It doesn't look to be so. Hannah Oakley's husband Benjamin was recorded as 'Constable at Tower' in the preceding census and a retired gunmaker from Birmingham in the 1881 census.

[Amanda]

Well....

Hi Amanda,

I've checked the 1871 Census Enumerators' Description for the District and there doesn't appear to be any date given for which the enumerator certified his schedule, which appears to be the practice for at least the 1841 & 1891 censuses (or censi). It could just be that it was missed out when microfilming or when scanning the microfilms (by Ancestry). findmypast don't appear to include the ED at all. In the couple of samples I have looked at though the enumerator has finished writing up the schedules within a week or so and the Registrar and Superintendent Registrar have examined them within about a month of the supposed date of the census.

I have seen though in the past whole streets enumerated twice and possibly the lone individual as well.

I took a quick look at some of the occupants at Abraham Mocatta's dwelling house to see if they had also been recorded twice. It doesn't look to be so. Hannah Oakley's husband Benjamin was recorded as 'Constable at Tower' in the preceding census and a retired gunmaker from Birmingham in the 1881 census.

Hello Nashwan,

As I mentioned in my post, I contacted National Archives & they told me that the 1871 London Census took 4.5 months to collect & record.

I know it's unusual but I'm not going to argue with them.

Also, there's no reason for the Mocatta family to be entered twice. I only suggested that if Jane had changed employment within that 4.5 month period, she MIGHT have been entered on returns filled in by both employers.

I'm butting out for a while now, other projects taking up my time. Will check in from time to time & see what you've all managed to find.
Happy hunting,
Amanda

[Panderoona]

post deleted innaccurate info

[Panderoona]

I have actually seen a duplicate. However, they were a family of romany gypsies who had moved from one village to another over the course of a day and were enumerated twice.

Im really trying hard to believe that this Jane was enumerated twice but I really dont think that she was. Enumerators should have been aware that the census, regardless how long it took to collect, should have included only people present on census night.

It sounds to me that "our" Jane was in St Pancras with the Bundy family, and Mrs Bundy was her witness at their wedding.

Amos Simpson simply wasnt involved in the way he said he was, or later generations claimed he was. What the shawl really is, and how it really links to the family doesnt seem very important now in light of the fact that Amos was not in the right police force, he wasnt near the crime, the validity of the DNA match is highly questionable (see other thread). Its a lovely theory Amanda and it took a lot of hard work. Wish it had worked.

[mickreed]

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

Hi Amanda

Sorry for delay. Been collecting the sick from hospital - fetching and carrying etc.

Well, who can say? The rules were clear. Only put the people who were in the house on census night 2 April 1871.

But... Rules get broken, so owt is possible.

Have I spelled this out before? If so, apologies. Process was:

1. Enumerator drops form off at premises with instructions to fill in for census night.

2. People - if they can write, and if they remember - fill it in.

3. Enumerator comes back (officially the next day or so, but in reality...?) to collect completed form. If forms are not completed, enumerator does it for them. Where does he get the info? A neighbour? A child? Gawd only knows? So plenty of chance for a mistake. If he was paid by results as was the case during the early BMD registrations from 1837, he might just make it up.

4. He copies info into his book, which is what we see. More chances of mistakes. Can't read writing, transcription errors, downright lies.

So - more research needed. It's possible. Me, I never believe anything, especially transcripts, unless it's corroborated - and not always then.

However, I still think it's unlikely. I suspect that the Jane at Moccatta's is either not born in 1848, or not in Gloucester - that is, it's a mistake, but it does need checking.

Thanks. I like little problems like this. Keep in touch.

[mickreed]

Census Process

Hi Amanda

This is useful for the process https://archive.org/details/cu31924030462109

Pp 5-6 say what should have happened, and also notes that 'a lady' was employed in London, and managed to do it okay. That must have come as a shock.

[Amanda]

Hi there...

Hi Amanda

This is useful for the process https://archive.org/details/cu31924030462109

Pp 5-6 say what should have happened, and also notes that 'a lady' was employed in London, and managed to do it okay. That must have come as a shock.

Hi Mick,
Well, I see what you're getting at & will totally accept that Jane didn't work for the Mocatta's - IF it is proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

I'm not pushing my theory , just trying to find an explanation into how a regular constable, out of his beat area, happened to snatch a shawl from a crime scene.

My biggest issue here is not Jane Simpson's possible connection to the shawl but her husband's apparent disregard for her feelings in bringing such a diabolical item into their house.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but we've all struggled long and hard with the evidence here and at the end if the day;

Edwards 0 - Ripperologists 1

Amanda

[Panderoona]

I think the answer is he didnt snatch a shawl from the crime scene.

He was based in Cheshunt from as early as 1881 (as proven in new thread today) so he was nowhere near the crime scene, and its unlikely in my opinion that he would be drafted in to Whitechapel when there were plenty of other acting sargeants (and those above and below that rank) who lived closer to the area. Tentatively he might have known Abberline but I think thats probably stretching it a bit, but without further evidence it cant be ruled out completely.

There was no shawl listed drawn or otherwise ever described at the crime scene. If a bloodstained one were found remotely nearby it would have been mentioned same as the apron.

I think its a lot more simple.
Some time after the murders, Amos buys a bit of old tut from someone flogging "Genuine Jack the Ripper" merchandise and its probably pigs blood or something on it. He takes it home and tells a tall tale about it being genuine. Chinese whispers down the family and hes the first on the scene and bags himself the shawl.

[MrBarnett]

I think the answer is he didnt snatch a shawl from the crime scene.

He was based in Cheshunt from as early as 1881 (as proven in new thread today) so he was nowhere near the crime scene, and its unlikely in my opinion that he would be drafted in to Whitechapel when there were plenty of other acting sargeants (and those above and below that rank) who lived closer to the area. Tentatively he might have known Abberline but I think thats probably stretching it a bit, but without further evidence it cant be ruled out completely.

There was no shawl listed drawn or otherwise ever described at the crime scene. If a bloodstained one were found remotely nearby it would have been mentioned same as the apron.

I think its a lot more simple.
Some time after the murders, Amos buys a bit of old tut from someone flogging "Genuine Jack the Ripper" merchandise and its probably pigs blood or something on it. He takes it home and tells a tall tale about it being genuine. Chinese whispers down the family and hes the first on the scene and bags himself the shawl.

Hi Panderoona,

Some of what you say is plausible, but it won't have been pigs blood, surely.

And if it is human, and ends up in the hands of a policeman, the chances are it came from a crime scene, wouldn't you say?

MrB

[mickreed]

Hi Panderoona,

Some of what you say is plausible, but it won't have been pigs blood, surely.

And if it is human, and ends up in the hands of a policeman, the chances are it came from a crime scene, wouldn't you say?

MrB

Why not pig's blood? And who says it's human?

[Panderoona]

If it genuinely came from a crime scene then yes its probably human. But theres no actual proof that it did. Even if it did, theres no proof that it had anything to do with Eddowes murder, or Jack for that matter. The DNA "match" has been put in serious doubt, and Amos Simpson was based in Cheshunt at the time of the murder.

[miss marple]

Jews would not employ Jewish servants, as on the Sabbeth day they had to rest completely, and do no work or activity. So it would be pointless to employ Jewish servants who were following the same religious laws as the employers.Because nothing would get done.

Miss Marple

[MrBarnett]

Why not pig's blood? And who says it's human?

Who says it's blood at all?