Annie's scarf

[Jon Guy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that list of possessions culled from various newspaper reports, primarily (but not entirely) from Inspector Chandler's inquest testimony as reported in more than one newspaper? As such, he was responding, in piecemeal fashion, to various questions raised at the inquest; he was never asked to recite a structured inventory, and neither did he. As such, the list can't be considered definitive, so we can't really be sure whether Chapman's scarf was missing or not.

Hi Sam

Chandler does provide details of Chapman`s clothing at the inquest, as reported in The Leeds Mercury 14th Sept 1888.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Jon. I haven't seen the Leeds Mercury report and the paper doesn't seem to be in the Casebook press reports archive. Any chance of a link or screenshot?

[Jon Guy]

Sorry Gareth, I had problems uploading it.
Here goes ...

Did you search the body: I searched the clothing at the mortuary. The outside jacket - a long jacket coming down to the knees -had blood stains on it. There were blood stains around the neck on it. There were blood stains round the neck of it, both inside and out, and two or three spots on the left arm. It was hooked at the top

Was there any evidence of a scuffle: No. There was no pocket in the jacket, in fact, there were no pockets in any of the clothing at all. The pockets were worn under the skirt. It was torn down the front and also at the side. It was quite empty. The dress was a black skirt. There was little blood on the outside, at the back cause by the woman having lain amongst the blood. There were also two petticoats.

Were they blood stained: Very little. There were two bodices. They were stained with blood round the neck.

Had they been injured: No, there did not appear to be a cut in the clothing at all. The chemise was stained with blood at the bottom and more or less all over. There was no corset. She had striped stockings and laced up boots, all old. None of her clothing was torn. Her boots were on her feet. The stockings were not blood stained.

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks Jon, but I can't read it. I'm on the phone, so it might just be a quirk of that.

[Wickerman]

To secure it in place, perhaps? For extra warmth (she was ill, after all)? Besides, unless she had a giraffe's neck, it's hard to see how a neckerchief and scarf could not be one on top of the other.

I've never heard of a woolen scarf needing to be held in place.
These neckerchiefs were normally worn around the neck for convenience, typically they were pulled up over the head to cover the hair, like a hood.
I'm sure you've seen this many times.
This might be why it was worn above the scarf. If the woolen scarf was worn over the neckerchief it would defeat the purpose.

As you point out, she was ill. So, quite reasonably she puts on a woolen scarf for extra warmth that night, but her regular neckerchief is tied around her neck and pulled up over the head if it rains. So, naturally when the neckerchief is pulled back down it will sit above the woolen scarf.

[Wickerman]

True, but a woollen scarf shouldn't have posed much of an obstacle for a very sharp knife.

Nobody is saying he didn't cut it off, we don't know how it was removed. As all the articles found loose in the yard were picked up by Chandler, this would have included her scarf if it had been thrown aside.
Also, if it had remained on the body it should have been soaked in blood if he sliced around her neck without removing it, and Chandler appears to mention all the clothing that was bloodstained - but again, no mention of the scarf.

Lets face it, it would be too impractical to believe the killer worked around this scarf to slice her throat. It would have been an obstacle that needed to be removed.

[Sam Flynn]

I've never heard of a woolen scarf needing to be held in place.

That's what brooches are for. If you don't have a brooch, you can improvise I guess.

And my point about the giraffe's neck still applies: i.e. Donovan said the scarf was under the neckerchief, and I think he meant that literally.

[Sam Flynn]

Sorry Gareth, I had problems uploading it.
Here goes ...

Did you search the body: I searched the clothing at the mortuary. The outside jacket - a long jacket coming down to the knees -had blood stains on it. There were blood stains around the neck on it. There were blood stains round the neck of it, both inside and out, and two or three spots on the left arm. It was hooked at the top

Was there any evidence of a scuffle: No. There was no pocket in the jacket, in fact, there were no pockets in any of the clothing at all. The pockets were worn under the skirt. It was torn down the front and also at the side. It was quite empty. The dress was a black skirt. There was little blood on the outside, at the back cause by the woman having lain amongst the blood. There were also two petticoats.

Were they blood stained: Very little. There were two bodices. They were stained with blood round the neck.

Had they been injured: No, there did not appear to be a cut in the clothing at all. The chemise was stained with blood at the bottom and more or less all over. There was no corset. She had striped stockings and laced up boots, all old. None of her clothing was torn. Her boots were on her feet. The stockings were not blood stained.

Thanks for adding the transcript, Jon. Like in other press reports, Chandler isn't reading out a structured inventory, but revealing bits and pieces of information about Annie's clothing, largely in response to questions. Sadly, therefore, we can't take this list as definitive or complete; indeed, he doesn't even mention the neckerchief, which she know she had on.

[Wickerman]

That's what brooches are for. If you don't have a brooch, you can improvise I guess.

Isn't a scarf tied around the neck?, often in a knot or a loop. It holds itself in place. It being wool too, it's not like it will slip all over the place.

[Sam Flynn]

Isn't a scarf tied around the neck?, often in a knot or a loop. It holds itself in place. It being wool too, it's not like it will slip all over the place.

Brooches are used to hold scarves in place, Jon. That's a fact. In the absence of a brooch, a knotted kerchief would do just as well, I'd imagine.

Besides, as we've seen throughout the case, many victims were "multi-layered", a symptom of their rootless lifestyle and, no doubt, a desire to keep warm when wandering the streets. Given that it was widely believed back then that keeping your throat warm was somehow curative (my dad still believes it!), I could well imagine women wrapping a scarf and a kerchief about the neck. Given that Annie was ill, perhaps that's all the more reason to suggest that she might have done just that.

[Joshua Rogan]

Reading the inquest testimony again, one thing that James Kent mentions seems a bit odd;

Daily News 13th Sept
"Could you see she was dead?-Yes; she had some kind of handkerchief round her neck which seemed "soaked" into her throat. Her face and hands were smeared with blood, as if she had struggled."

No mention of a black woollen scarf - could the killer have pulled this out from under the handkerchief, moving that over the throat cut thus leading Davis to think it was deliberately tied over the wound?

But the next line is the strange part;

"She looked as if she had been sprinkled with water or something."
I do hope that was caused by rain, and not some final indignity by the killer.

[Joshua Rogan]

Oh, wait, I've just realised where the "water or something" may have come from...

"The womb itself and two thirds of the bladder were absent from the body"

[Debra A]

This is a very interesting discussion.

One thing that does seem to come out at the inquest when Robert Mann describes the the handkerchief he picked up and put in water at the request of Dr Phillips, he is questioned by the Coroner on how he knows the handkerchief was taken from the throat as he states, as Mann wasn't present when the body was stripped and the Coroner suggests he is guessing.
I just thought it interesting in respect of the was she- wasn't she wearing an apron issue with Catherine Eddowes. Obviously the Coroner in this case wanted to establish without doubt that Chapman was wearing this handkerchief around her neck and Phillips mentions there at two witnesses to establish this.

Doesn't help with the woollen scarf issue though, sorry...carry on.

[Sam Flynn]

Nobody is saying he didn't cut it off

Neither am I. I'm suggesting that the cut might simply have been above it.

Also, if it had remained on the body it should have been soaked in blood if he sliced around her neck without removing it, and Chandler appears to mention all the clothing that was bloodstained - but again, no mention of the scarf.

Unfortunately, we do not have a structured inventory from Chandler, only piecemeal responses to questions, which we have to reconstruct from various press reports. We have no idea how complete such reconstructions are.

Incidentally, if the killer needed something in which to smuggle organs, it's inherently unlikely that he'd have chosen a thick woollen scarf, when the neckerchief - or any number of other pieces of less bulky cloth about Annie's person - would have better served such a purpose.

[Bridewell]

Just something that occurs to me from Chandler's evidence:-

When the coroner asks:

Was there any evidence of a scuffle?"

He replies: " No. There was no pocket in the jacket, in fact, there were no pockets in any of the clothing at all."

That's perhaps a logical answer to a question about evidence of a robbery, but a scuffle?