Annie's scarf

[Wickerman]

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.

That would involved trying to untie a knot, and possibly that neckerchief was not large enough anyway.
A loose scarf is the more likely of the two to remove. The next choice might have been to slice a portion off her dress, or clothing.
By the way, wool does not have to be bulky, it can be quite flat. Look at the woolen tunics worn by the regular soldiers.

[Sam Flynn]

That would involved trying to untie a knot, and possibly that neckerchief was not large enough anyway.

It was big enough to fit over a scarf, apparently. Besides, why did he need to worry about trying to untie a knot, when he had an extremely sharp knife at his disposal?

[curious]

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.

Hi,
I'm not sure I'm "seeing" or envisioning what you are suggesting.

What if one felt better against the skin than the other and the underneath one was worn to make the other more comfortable?

curious

[Sam Flynn]

Hi,
I'm not sure I'm "seeing" or envisioning what you are suggesting.

The report said that the scarf was worn "under" the neckerchief, which I took to mean that the scarf was literally "underneath" the neckerchief. Wickerman suggested that this could have meant that it was "lower down on the neck", i.e. with the scarf at one level, and the neckerchief at a higher level. Hence my reference to a "giraffe's neck" - i.e., Chapman's neck would have had to have been rather long to accommodate a scarf and a neckerchief arranged "in parallel" on the throat, so to speak.

What if one felt better against the skin than the other and the underneath one was worn to make the other more comfortable?

Indeed, and that would fit in perfectly with the scarf being "under" the neckerchief as per the report, and in the way in which I read the report. Cheers!

[Wickerman]

.....Indeed, and that would fit in perfectly with the scarf being "under" the neckerchief as per the report, and in the way in which I read the report. Cheers!

That is what I was saying.
The neckerchief was above the scarf (between the lower jaw and the scarf).
Wool can be itchy against the lower jaw, especially when turning your head side to side.
The neckerchief is worn above the woolen scarf, for comfort - not over the top of the scarf (as if to hold in place).
That was the difference, as I understood it.

[Jon Guy]

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.

Chandler seems to be running through a list of some sort. He is asked if there was a scuffle and in the reply he goes on to say that she wore a dark dress and two petticoats.!! He even mentions what she isn`t wearing.

You have to admit that if there was a woollen scarf around her neck, it would have been mentioned

I can`t think why the neckerchief isn`t mentioned by Chandler.
I believe Sgt Thick described Chapman`s clothing to Chandler, and she was undressed by the two nurses and her clothes put in the corner of the shed, leaving the neckerchief around her throat. Perhaps, this had something to do with Chandler`s list, in that he went thru her clothing when it was on the floor, and there was no neckerchief in this pile.

But, although it is pretty evident that the woolly scarf is missing, it`s not an ascertained fact. I have amended my notes accordingly.

[Sam Flynn]

Chandler seems to be running through a list of some sort.

It's quite probable, Jon, but the degree to which he adhered to any inventory is questionable, given the manner in which he seems to have responded:

"The outside jacket - a long black one, which came down to the knees - had bloodstains round the neck, both upon the inside and out, and two or three spots on the left arm. The jacket was hooked at the top, and buttoned down the front. By the appearance of the garment there did not seem to have been any struggle. A large pocket was worn under the skirt (attached by strings), which I produce. It was torn down the front and also at the side, and it was empty. Deceased wore a black skirt. There was a little blood on the outside. The two petticoats were stained very little; the two bodices were stained with blood round the neck, but they had not been damaged. There was no cut in the clothing at all. The boots were on the feet of deceased. They were old. No part of the clothing was torn. The stockings were not bloodstained." (Daily Telegraph)

That looks to me like a narrative, rather than someone reading out a dry list in sequence. If he was reading from such a list, he appears to have been flowering it up with various asides as he was going along.

You have to admit that if there was a woollen scarf around her neck, it would have been mentioned

Only if what we have is a faithful, if "flowery", recitation of a complete inventory, and even then, it's possible that his eyes skipped an entry or two. If he was, as I suggest, "flowering it up with asides", a bit of eye-skipping wouldn't be surprising. (I've given a fair few presentations in my time, with bullet-numbered speaker's notes as a prompt. I tend not to follow a script and can sometimes go off on tangents. Many's the time I've missed a few bullet-points on such occasions, hopefully not to the detriment of my overall message )

But, although it is pretty evident that the woolly scarf is missing, it`s not an ascertained fact. I have amended my notes accordingly.

Excellent, and precisely the kind of responsible approach I'd expect from you, Jon.

[Sam Flynn]

Only if what we have is a faithful, if "flowery", recitation of a complete inventory, and even then, it's possible that his eyes skipped an entry or two.

Of course, it's possible that the Telegraph skipped one or more nuggets of info. From what I can tell, this is the fullest account of Chandler's testimony in the press, and thank goodness we have it. However, the equivalent accounts in other papers - including the Times - are rather more terse, and even omit some of the details that the Telegraph preserved. Whether the Telegraph preserved them all, however, cannot be known for sure.

[Michael W Richards]

Interesting point....and one that brings to mind the torn and cut apron section from Kate. Is this possibly an indicator that in both cases something was taken from the victim to carry off the materials excised?

[Sam Flynn]

Interesting point....and one that brings to mind the torn and cut apron section from Kate. Is this possibly an indicator that in both cases something was taken from the victim to carry off the materials excised?

That's what some folks are suggesting. Whilst we don't know the precise size of the Goulston St apron piece, we can have a reasonable guess as to how big Annie's woollen scarf might have been. If it were a fairly typical scarf, it would surely be far too big to use as a "wrap" for a uterus, two-thirds of a bladder (hence a collapsed, empty bladder) and a piece of flesh surrounding the navel. There were plenty of other pieces of cloth about Annie's person - the neckerchief for one, the under-skirt pockets for another - that would have been rather more suitable to wrap the organs, if that had been the killer's purpose.

[Debra A]

I have some questions if anyone is able to answer them?

Did Reid take a description of Annie Chapman, assisted by two women from 35 Dorset Street as he believed they would be better able to describe the woman's clothing? I think I read that in one newspaper but don't remember which one.
Regarding the neckerchief-What was Mann talking about when he said he had picked the neckerchief up from the corner after it was removed from the neck by the nurses who stripped the body if it was still in situ. when Phillips saw the body? Mann was checked by the coroner for saying that and asked if he was present when it was removed from the throat and he said, no. The Coroner then accused him of just guessing. Phillips then mentioned that there were two witnesses to her wearing the neckerchief tied around her throat. Timothy Donovan then gives evidence as to seeing her wearing it, but this was in life.

I'm confused. Did Phillips really see the neckerchief on the body in the mortuary?

[Michael W Richards]

That's what some folks are suggesting. Whilst we don't know the precise size of the Goulston St apron piece, we can have a reasonable guess as to how big Annie's woollen scarf might have been. If it were a fairly typical scarf, it would surely be far too big to use as a "wrap" for a uterus, two-thirds of a bladder (hence a collapsed, empty bladder) and a piece of flesh surrounding the navel. There were plenty of other pieces of cloth about Annie's person - the neckerchief for one, the under-skirt pockets for another - that would have been rather more suitable to wrap the organs, if that had been the killer's purpose.

Since people carried belongings around in sacks Sam, I don't think "too big" is much of an issue. Perhaps the fact that less biological material was taken from Kate might align well with a smaller carry-all...a section of apron.

[Sam Flynn]

Since people carried belongings around in sacks Sam, I don't think "too big" is much of an issue.

I'm talking about the presumed purpose, which was to wrap three fleshy items which could have sat easily in the open palm of a man's hand. He surely wouldn't have needed anything as large or bulky as a woollen scarf to carry them.

[Hunter]

I have some questions if anyone is able to answer them?

Did Reid take a description of Annie Chapman, assisted by two women from 35 Dorset Street as he believed they would be better able to describe the woman's clothing? I think I read that in one newspaper but don't remember which one.

Hi Debs,
I'm only going from memory here, but I believe it was Inspector Chandler who talked to the women, Inspector Reid being on leave at the time. No one wanted to own up to the responsibility of removing the clothing. The nurses from the infirmary said the were told to do so by Chandler and Chandler denied this was the case.

Regarding the neckerchief-What was Mann talking about when he said he had picked the neckerchief up from the corner after it was removed from the neck by the nurses who stripped the body if it was still in situ. when Phillips saw the body? Mann was checked by the coroner for saying that and asked if he was present when it was removed from the throat and he said, no. The Coroner then accused him of just guessing. Phillips then mentioned that there were two witnesses to her wearing the neckerchief tied around her throat. Timothy Donovan then gives evidence as to seeing her wearing it, but this was in life.

I'm confused. Did Phillips really see the neckerchief on the body in the mortuary?

It is a little confusing but all this happened after the body was at the workhouse shed. It is my understanding that all the clothing had been removed and the body washed before Phillips got there around 2 p m. He had been waiting for the coroner's authorization to proceed with a post-mortem and finding the body disturbed like that really set him off. It is partly his fault however, because he should have accompanied the body to the ' mortuary' himself and had it secured as it was in his charge. Notice he did do this with McKenzie.

[Hunter]

On second thought, I could be wrong about the first part. It may have been Sgt. Badham who talked to the women from Dorset St. while Sgt. Thicke inventoried Chapman's clothes. I believe they were there to identify her and Chandler had left.