The address of Jacob Cohen

[Chris Scott]

the usually quoted address for Jacob Cohen is 51 Carter Lane.
Below is an enlargement from the committal papers for Kozminski which I can only read as 67 Carter Lane.
I have posted a copy of the committal papers at

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=18971

[JtRMordke]

Certainly looks like 67 to me - I know they might have written the number 1 to look rather like a 7 but if the 6 is really meant to be a 5 then it was incredibly sloppy. Thanks for the post, Chris! It's always lovely to see copies of the original documents on here.

[Chris Scott]

Certainly looks like 67 to me - I know they might have written the number 1 to look rather like a 7 but if the 6 is really meant to be a 5 then it was incredibly sloppy. Thanks for the post, Chris! It's always lovely to see copies of the original documents on here.

Hi
As a comparison at the head of the page in the same handwriting is the address 16 Greenfield Street which lets us see how the writer formed the numbers 1 and 6. This reinforces to my mind that the second digit of Cohen's address is a 7.

[Chris Scott]

I have managed to trace entries for 67 Carter Lane in the 1881 census. I say "entries" because No 67 features twice! (Why is nothing in this case ever simple!?)
The entries are found in the district and sub district of:-
London/St Martins Ludgate/District 2
The first entry concerns a combined address of 63, 65 and 67 Carter Lane. The premises is annotated on the census sheet as "Dakin and Co, Assistants) The occupants are headed by Alexander G Waterham, listed as a Cashier (Tea Merchants). There follow various entries for the premises as follows: 6 men listed as clerks, 5 men listed as shopmen, 8 men listed as porters, one more male clerk, one more shopman and 5 servants, male and female. None of these is named Jacob Cohen.
The second entry is listed as 67, 71 and 73 Carter Lane. This is very clearly and unambiguously written but I still suspect that it is a written error and should read 69, 71 and 73. The numbering would thus follow contiguously and would eliminate the duplication of No 67.
For the record the premises listed as 67, 71 and 73 was a Tobacco manufacturers headed by one James Knapp. 11 occupants are listed and it is entirely a family run business with all residents members of that family.

[JtRMordke]

What an elusive (yet brilliant) find, though judging by the tatters of information that surrounds Kozminski, it seems to have followed a similar pattern of obscurity. If I remember correctly, the committal papers were of 1891, some ten years after the said entry, thus if Jacob Cohen follows through anything like the moving patterns of Woolf and his family then it is likely that he lived at several different addresses within the same area over a relatively short space of time. Comparative to the 1 and the 6 of the Greenfield Street address, you are right; his address is clearly listed as number 67.

[Robert]

There is a Times advert for 1889 announcing that Nos. 63, 65 and 67 are for sale. In 1893 the premises (known apparently as the Phoenix Works) were destroyed by fire. They were owned and occupied by Judd & Co, printers and lithographers.

[Chris]

Chris

I see what you mean by the number looking like 67, but unfortunately the online image is not absolutely clear in the crucial areas. I (like others before me) read the number in the original as 51.

It is clearly 51 in the copy of this information in the Colney Hatch records - see the photo posted by Rob House last year:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=240404&postcount=2

Of course, we also know that Thomas Coughtrey Davies, Jacob Cohen and Woolf Abrahams were in a partnership at 51 Carter Lane, which was dissolved in July 1891, according to the London Gazette of 17 July 1891 (as discovered originally by Robert).

[Chris Scott]

Chris

I see what you mean by the number looking like 67, but unfortunately the online image is not absolutely clear in the crucial areas. I (like others before me) read the number in the original as 51.

It is clearly 51 in the copy of this information in the Colney Hatch records - see the photo posted by Rob House last year:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=240404&postcount=2

Of course, we also know that Thomas Coughtrey Davies, Jacob Cohen and Woolf Abrahams were in a partnership at 51 Carter Lane, which was dissolved in July 1891, according to the London Gazette of 17 July 1891 (as discovered originally by Robert).

Hi Chris
I did not mean to imply that I was doubting that 51 Carter Lane was given as Cohen's address in a variety of sources. I was just interested as to why in this document there was this variance.
Below is the best resolution I have of the relevant section of this document
which gives the statement of Cohen's testimony

[Chris Scott]

The address itself at larger size is as follows

[robhouse]

I have done a bit of photoshop manipulation on the image. (NOTE: the top image is Chris Scott's original. The bottom two images I manipulated, and they are for conjecture only.)

I think it is conceivable that the number here is actually 51 if:

a. the person wrote it in cursive, connecting the top of the 5 and 1.
b. the line connecting the 5 and 1 is partially invisible due to a bad scan, or light pressure of the pen.

Just a thought.

Rob H

[robhouse]

The more I look at it, the more it looks like 51.

If that is a "6" then I think it looks like an odd 6. It looks to me like the pen started at the top left, went down, then reversed direction to make the bottom loop by drawing in a CLOCKWISE direction. Whereas the 6 in "16" looks like it starts at top, then comes down and continues down to make the bottom loop in a counter-clockwise direction.

Hence, I am now thinking it actually is a 5.

RH

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Monkeys and William

A 5? Christ why can't anyone print anything?

[Chris]

The more I look at it, the more it looks like 51.

If that is a "6" then I think it looks like an odd 6. It looks to me like the pen started at the top left, went down, then reversed direction to make the bottom loop by drawing in a CLOCKWISE direction. Whereas the 6 in "16" looks like it starts at top, then comes down and continues down to make the bottom loop in a counter-clockwise direction.

Hence, I am now thinking it actually is a 5.

Yes - it looks to me as though the loop at the bottom was written clockwise (as would be normal for a 5 but not a 6), leaving a indication of a corner where it starts, which is visible even in the image posted by Chris.

The other thing is that the other examples of 7 written by Houchin in these documents look rather different from the suggested 7 in Chris's interpretation. (Sorry - can't post an example at the moment, but there are several in the next few reception orders on Ancestry.co.uk).

[JtRMordke]

Yes, if you study the direction of the strokes then it appears to have been just an incredibly sloppy written 5 where the stoke at the top ended up joined to the other number. Good with a few close ups as scanned documents aren't nearly as clear and the originals. Would be nice to see the comparison when you get the chance Chris! The document was probably written rather quickly and the style appears to be open to minor 'mistakes'.

[Beowulf]

But what is the significance of his address? I mean, yes, I understand it would be good information, but is there something else?

Is this address particularly notable to the crimes? What is there now?