Annie's scarf

[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]

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]

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]

A neckerchief wouldn`t be the same volume as a woollen scarf.

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

[Jon Guy]

He doesn't seem to have felt the need to remove her neckerchief.

A neckerchief wouldn`t be the same volume as a woollen scarf.

[Sam Flynn]

Also, considering it`s position around the neck, did the killer have to remove it ?

He doesn't seem to have felt the need to remove her neckerchief.

[Jon Guy]

The woollen scarf is certainly conspicuous by it`s absence.

The other item around her neck, the neckerchief, certainly gets lots of mentions by witnesses and medical staff, but no mention of the scarf.
No mention of it in Inspector Chandlers run down of what Chapman was wearing.

Also, considering it`s position around the neck, did the killer have to remove it ?

[Sam Flynn]

I think in this context, "under" means below, as in 'lower down' on the neck.
It wouldn't make sense to tie a handkerchief over the top of a woollen scarf.

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.

[Wickerman]

I think in this context, "under" means below, as in 'lower down' on the neck.
It wouldn't make sense to tie a handkerchief over the top of a woollen scarf.

Besides, Dr Phillips is reputed to have said:
"The handkerchief produced was tied loosely round the deceased's neck. It did not seem to have been disturbed when the throat was cut, and I do not think it was placed round the neck after the murder was committed."
Morning Advertiser, 14 Sept. 1888.

[Sam Flynn]

According to Davis, who found the body, "Her throat was cut open in a fearful manner, so deep, in fact, that the murderer... tied a handkerchief round it so as to keep it on" (The Star, 8th Sept). According to Donovan, the scarf was worn under the neckerchief. So, unless the killer took off her neckerchief, removed her scarf, then re-tied the neckerchief, it's likely that the scarf was still in place.

[Jon Guy]

That is a bit disappointing...I may have missed it, but can't see any complete list in the Ultimate, just a few items being mentioned....so Sam may have a point.

But... it`s not mentioned as being around her neck, and it would have been noted if it was lying around the yard.

I think my chapter on the scarf is safe ....

[Joshua Rogan]

Hang fire, JR !!
Sam Flynn is about to destroy a year`s work ;-)

That is a bit disappointing...I may have missed it, but can't see any complete list in the Ultimate, just a few items being mentioned....so Sam may have a point.

[Jon Guy]

So her black scarf had apparently disappeared, good spot Jon!

Hang fire, JR !!
Sam Flynn is about to destroy a year`s work ;-)

[Jon Guy]

Thanks, Jon

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.

Oh no, don`t say that, Gareth
I`ve already written this chapter in me bok.

I took the possessions list off Casebook, as I`m at work at the moment.
I assumed the possessions list was from the police files in the Ultimate ?

[Joshua Rogan]

So her black scarf had apparently disappeared, good spot Jon! I suppose there's a possibility she pawned or sold it shortly before her death, but a remote one. It might shed some light on a puzzling newspaper report (I think from Davis), about thinking her killer was so appalled at nearly cutting her head off that he had tried to cover the wound with the kerchief. But if the kerchief had simply been pushed up as the scarf was removed from beneath it...?

I've always wondered how we would know if any items had been taken from the victims unless they were found elsewhere (like the apron piece) or left marks from being forcefully removed (like Annie's rings). Would the police have been able to obtain a complete list of personal effects from those who knew the victims? Would they, for instance, have asked John Kelly if Kate habitually wore no drawers or stays (as per list of clothing) or whether the killer might have made off with these (or any other item)?

Interesting to note in James Kent's evidence that he says "Deceased's clothes were disarranged, and her apron was thrown over them.", when, if the skirts were thrown up as with Kate, you might expect the apron to be under the skirts.
So perhaps the killer used it to wipe his hands in this case too?