pc edward watkins (881-city police) was he the ripper, poss new evidence.

[Trevor Marriott]

Here is an informative site which gives some info about City of London Police Truncheons.

http://citypolice.tripod.com/cuffs_and_truncheons.htm

Tread with caution remember the diary !

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread"

[Trevor Marriott]

On another point Pc Watkins would have had to hand in his official truncheon when he left the police service.

He would also have not been able to deface his official trucheon in the way that truncheon in the picture has been defaced.

It was standard practice up until not so long ago that when police officers paraded for duty they had to show their handcuffs and truncheon before going out on patrol. Watkins would not have got away with producing that truncheon.

[Monty]

Thats not an official truncheon Trevor.

As I mention earlier, there is a docket in his file showing that Watkins did hand in his equipment, though the exact kit is not listed.

And yes, his kit would have been checked during muster, as would his suitability for duty. As Rob and I show in our articles, a few were found to be drunk whilst mustering and subsequently punished.

Monty

[Monty]

Another point...

....Id like to make is this.

Upon Watkins application to join the City Police he states his profession as Carpenter.

The crude markings upon the truncheon were not made by a Carpenter in my humble opinion.

Cheers
Monty

[m_w_r]

Upon Watkins application to join the City Police he states his profession as Carpenter.

The crude markings upon the truncheon were not made by a Carpenter in my humble opinion.

Cheers
Monty

Hi Monty,

This is an interesting point. You'll notice that the first d in Edward is in lower-case, whereas everything else is in upper-case. Could it be that the person carving the letters found a lower-case d difficult to manage, and decided to revert to upper-case letters for the rest of the carvings? If they did, this would also suggest that the carver was not a carpenter, who might be expected to anticipate practical difficulties of this sort before beginning the task. I can't tell, however, why a lower-case d would prove especially difficult.

The other point that strikes me is the formulation PC 881 City Police. A more commonly used formulation would have been City PC 881 - this is because the word police is tautological if one has already described oneself as a PC. This isn't an invariable rule, though: I ought to point out that I have seen City collar numbers given as per the truncheon in question, but not often.

Regards,

Mark

[IchabodCrane]

Fascinating thread. Are Chas' friends still alive? It would be interesting to learn more about the knives.

[tnb]

Mark -

Might it be that the wording 'PC 881 City Police' may actually be a combination of two pieces of information - one giving Watkins' identification as 'PC 881' and the other identifiying him as part of the 'City Police'?

I agree that I can not see Watkins himself carving that combination of details; while it is the kind of wording we see in books all the time, copied without much thought, to a policeman it would instantly not scan right. However, were they copied from - for example - a book on the murders, it may make more sense?

I would just like to say, and I am sure this will be seconded by many but I am saying this for Lynseyjo's benefit, that I hope she and her father are not getting disheartened by our cynicism - even if this proves to be a 'forgery' for want of a better word, it is still a very interesting development that someone, sometime saw fit to carve Edward Watkins' details into a truncheon and hide it, never mind along with two knives and in the midst of 'Ripper' territory.

Has anyone ever found PC Watkins in the censuses, so as to see whether we can confirm if he lived near Brick Lane or not? I must admit he is not a character I am entirely up to date on.

[Monty]

Mark,

The whole carving looks amatuerish, even child like. As Im sure you are aware, Carpentry differs from Joinery. Theres a slightly greater degree of skill. Theres also the pride element.

City of London trucheons had 'CP' (City Police) embossed and its possible there may, and I stress may, be some confusion but yes, I agree, its a rather odd presentation.

Also, his writing was beautiful. Real quality. Better than mine.

Below is the 1st page of Watkins application form showing his previous trade, and a sample of his writing in a 1911 letter he wrote to the City Police. As you can see, Watkins is living in Romford at this time. Infact, he had been living in Romford certainly since 1901, maybe a little before. If these items were his then he didnt take them with him.

Regards
Monty

[Monty]

Trevor,

I want to make clear that I mean no disresepect to Lynsey Jo and Chas. Its a wonderful story and one I do not doubt. The truncheon in itself is fantastic. Im merely trying to point out the facts and try and establish, best I can, if it is Watkins kit.

Watkins census returns has him born in St Pancras in 1844.

His 1871 application form has him living at 2 Bramley Street, Walmer Road, Notting Hill however the census for that year has an address of 2 Great Charlotte Street, Southwark. Its possible he lived at both at some stage during 1871.

1881 census has him at 6 Eldon Street, St Leonards, Shoreditch.

1891 census has him at 22 Hamilton Buildings, Great Eastern Street, Shoreditch.

1901 census he is at Rush Green, Beacontree Heath Road, Romford, Essex.

And finally, the 1911 census has him still in Romford, at 1 Low Shoe Lane, Collier Row.


None of these address run off or are immediately near to Brick Lane. However he may have lived in different areas inbetween census reports, so its possible he lived in that area and we are just not aware of it.

Cheers
Monty

[tnb]

Neil,

I wasn't trying to imply that you, or anyone was being disrespectful - I just thought someone should put that fact in words for LynseyJo and Chas, as we are perhaps a little inured to the level of analysis we (rightly) put things through on here, and so know we mean no harm, but I was a bit concerned should LynseyJo and/or Chas, through not being so familiar with out 'quirks' take it the wrong way. As I said, I expected it would be seconded by most people, and I am glad to see that I was right.

That census info is interesting, thankyou. Obviously as you say the problem with censuses (censii?) is that they give no indication of moves in the decade inbetween, but I was just wondering what PC Watkins' pattern of movements was like - some people's census returns show so many addresses you can't rule anything out, while if we had found him for three concurrent reports, for example, living in the same place then it would be a fairly good guess - but a guess nonetheless - that he hadn't moved much, if at all, inbetween (as seems to have been the case at the end of his life). As it is, it looks like he was one of those who moved around regularly, at least up until his move to Romford, and so as you say it is quite possible he was living in the Brick Lane area at some point.

Best and all that jazz - Trevor.

edit - stunning handwriting!

[Trevor Marriott]

If the truncheon was Watkins and not his official police issue. He has gone to extreme lengths to make it identifiable. To me thats very much over the top. Surley if you wanted to make something like that identifiable then you would have just marked your initials on it or made some small identifying mark rather than deface it completely.

We nowadays are encouraged to make our possessions identifiable by making small identifiable marks on them should they get stolen. I dont think we would go to those lengths.

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

I don't often post these days, but this really is a fascinating thread, and I would like to echo everyone's thanks to Lynsey and Chas for posting the photos and starting the discussion.

Perhaps it would be useful to come at this from another angle.

Looking at the evidence it would be fair to say it's not really at all likely that was Watkin's original truncheon. But, assuming that Chas' story is true, someone, carved Watkins details on that truncheon and hid it along with the two knives prior to 1945.

If it was just a hoax, why would they hide it where no-one could find it until years later? They would hardly be much fun or profit in that.

So, even if the truncheon isn't Watkin's official issue, we still have to ask, who did it and why? Could it still have been Watkins?

Much love

Jane

xxxxx

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi,

I don't often post these days, but this really is a fascinating thread, and I would like to echo everyone's thanks to Lynsey and Chas for posting the photos and starting the discussion.

Perhaps it would be useful to come at this from another angle.

Looking at the evidence it would be fair to say it's not really at all likely that was Watkin's original truncheon. But, assuming that Chas' story is true, someone, carved Watkins details on that truncheon and hid it along with the two knives prior to 1945.

If it was just a hoax, why would they hide it where no-one could find it until years later? They would hardly be much fun or profit in that.

So, even if the truncheon isn't Watkin's official issue, we still have to ask, who did it and why? Could it still have been Watkins?

Much love

Jane

xxxxx

As i said in a previous post remember the diary !

[ChrisGeorge]

PC EDWARD WATKINS (881 – CITY POLICE)

Was he the Ripper? Possible new evidence.

Hello folks, I’m Lynsey from Hemel Hempstead. My father is Chas aged 75, also from Hemel. Whilst surfing the web at Christmas we came across @Jack the Ripper@ page and PC Edward Watkins interest. Chas was very interested in the Watkins for the reasons related later.

Chas is completely Laptop/Computer illiterate and has asked me to tell his most interesting story and follows thus:

‘I am 75 years of age but at the tail end of the 1939-1945 war, when a young rogue of 10-11, myself and two other pals were playing in a bomb damaged house in a road off Brick Lane, Whitechapel. . . . I began pulling at the damaged floorboards and after removing just a couple of boards noticed a cardboard box complete with lid. I threw down the firewood I had just collected and proceeded to remove the box from under the edge of the floorboards. The lid was slightly damaged but in picking up the box noticed it was crumbling with decay at one end where it had been stood on the earthen floor below the floorboards. At this point I noticed it was heavy and something was rattling around inside. The next instance I had the lid off and in the same instance my two mates had leapt to my side and were shouting “ What is it, what is it, show us and share it” This was the first time I held the contents. In the box was two knives and one truncheon. The first knife I would describe as a butchers knife with a blade about 2” wide and 14” to 16” long with a wooden handle bound with a type of string a butcher would use to tie up a joint of meat. The second knife I would describe as a dagger, the type a boy scout would wear down his sock or belt and about 9” long. The third and I think the most interesting was a truncheon 18” long made of unpolished plain wood. . . .

Let's consider this another way.

Chas's story relates that he and his friends found in a bombed-out house in Whitechapel a box containing a truncheon, possibly not of official police issue, but crudely engraved with the name and City Police number of P.C. Edward Watkins, one of the policemen involved in the Jack the Ripper case, and specifically the beat copper who found fourth canonical victim Catherine Eddowes in the corner of Mitre Square, Aldgate, in the early morning hours of September 30, 1888.

That's all it is, a box with a truncheon and some knives.

Does that mean that P.C. Watkins was Jack the Ripper? Hardly. It's not a signed confession and there's nothing to link the knives to the case except for the idea that the killer used a knife.

On the other hand, if the truncheon was not in fact P.C. Watkins' truncheon, the engraving of Watkins' name into the truncheon could mean that someone at some time wished to create a "Ripper" artifact. One is reminded, as Trevor has urged us to do, about the problematical Diary, or indeed the below watch that was offered on ebay some years ago.

Chris

[Archaic]

Hi, Jane- nice to see you pop up!

I don't know if the truncheon belonged to Watkins, but I work in Antiques and I have seen many cases where a well-intentioned family member thought they were "preserving an heirloom for posterity" by inscribing the original owner's name in large letters.

I've seen examples where they wrote the original owner's name across the item in such a way that they inadvertently defaced it. (Black marking pen right across the front, wood-burned writing, etc.)

People do this from good honest motives, thinking it will be an aid to family history, but they often do it in a less-than-ideal way.

PC Watkins was a father, and this truncheon was found in the 1940's, so perhaps it was passed down in his family, some later person 'inscribed' it and then Chas came along and found it... The Who, Why & When may never be known.

But it's a terrific little mystery, and I really appreciate Chas and Lynsey sharing it with us.

Best regards,
Archaic