Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PC did not pass Dorset St. in his beat

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Through the BNA we can find Constable 63 L mentioned in several accounts of arrests from the 1850's to 1887. In only one instance is a name provided with the collar number - Henry Morton, in the London Evening Standard, 19 Aug. 1852 (though the number given is 53 L, surely a miss-print?).
    Which is not to suggest this same collar number was not assigned to a different constable in later years.

    So if Morton resigned in 1870 (as per Robert), then perhaps Rouse is the man mentioned in the IPN of 24 November 1888?
    Last edited by Wickerman; 07-27-2017, 05:17 PM.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • #32
      Thank you David. The only one in the police pensions was the wrong area. I suppose poor Rouse resigned too early to qualify for a pension.

      The date of his resignation proves that he was the man in question and his good conduct assessment shows that he wasn't blamed for missing anything.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
        In Police Orders of 26 March 1889, P.C. 63L is stated to be Constable Rouse (who was then on the sick list).

        A little bit of digging, shows that this was Henry Rouse who joined the Met Police in L Division on 14 August 1882, with warrant number 67055, and resigned on 11 May 1889. Police Orders for 11 May 1889 give his conduct for his certificate as "Very Good".
        Excellent, David. Thank you very much.

        Rouse appeared as witness in two Old Bailey trials, 1884 and 1886:

        https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brow...=t18840915-982
        https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brow...=t18860308-403

        Comment


        • #34
          "For the inquest, the Coroner selects the witness statements which are going to help him uncover the identity of the victim, and the where,
          when & by what means the victim met her death."

          Wickerman


          How did post #1 examples qualify for the above rule.In practice they did not follow? The inquest was also to make it clear what happened that early morning around the murder time?


          ----

          So we can assume then that the PC saw nobody in Dorset street in his pass on either side of 2:30 am (Lewis did not see a PC),it was deserted and therefore his report was insignificant.He must have passed early 2 am or late 2 am missing Hutch's 45 minute wait and so his report was not usable to dismiss Hutch.
          Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
          M. Pacana

          Comment


          • #35
            "You didn't just say that it was possible, you said it was your "contention" that he wasn't. I just don't think there's anything to support that idea?"

            Kattrup



            Both.No I have not come across anything that the PC passed the street or not.


            It's just a nagging belief that even if the beat was 1 hour if the PC did not see anybody on Dorset St.on either side of 2:30 am (Lewis did not see a PC) that would have been significant and made the events that early morning clearer by any standard.
            Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
            M. Pacana

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
              In Police Orders of 26 March 1889, P.C. 63L is stated to be Constable Rouse (who was then on the sick list).

              A little bit of digging, shows that this was Henry Rouse who joined the Met Police in L Division on 14 August 1882, with warrant number 67055, and resigned on 11 May 1889. Police Orders for 11 May 1889 give his conduct for his certificate as "Very Good".
              Good info.Tlhanks.
              Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
              M. Pacana

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                "For the inquest, the Coroner selects the witness statements which are going to help him uncover the identity of the victim, and the where,
                when & by what means the victim met her death."

                Wickerman


                How did post #1 examples qualify for the above rule.In practice they did not follow? The inquest was also to make it clear what happened that early morning around the murder time?
                There is a very broad outline of a Coroner's duties in the Coroner's Act of 1887.
                S. 3 (1)
                "The coroner should therefore inquire as to the circumstances of the death ; where and when the deceased died or was found dead ; by whom he was last seen alive ; who was present, or who first saw the body after death ; whether any known illness existed ; whether any negligence or blame is alleged against anyone ; whether the deceased has been seen by any medical practitioner ; what is the supposed cause of death, either known or suspected ; whether the death was sudden ; whether caused by violence, as wounds, burns, ill-usage, poison, suicide ; and whether any mystery is attached. In cases of accident he should inquire who was present, or who first saw the deceased after the accident."

                Further it is stated, in S. 4 (3), that the jury shall set in writing the particulars which have proven to them - "who the deceased was, and how, when, and where the deceased came by his death, and, if he came by his death by murder or manslaughter, the person's if any, whom the jury find to have been guilty of such murder or manslaughter, or of being accessories before the fact to such murder."

                So you can see plenty of elbow room between the former and the latter.


                So we can assume then that the PC saw nobody in Dorset street in his pass on either side of 2:30 am (Lewis did not see a PC),it was deserted and therefore his report was insignificant.He must have passed early 2 am or late 2 am missing Hutch's 45 minute wait and so his report was not usable to dismiss Hutch.
                We can assume the constable saw nothing of consequence to the inquiry.
                Whether he saw Hutchinson or not will never be known.
                Last edited by Wickerman; 07-28-2017, 05:51 AM.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                  Yes, great Kattrup, that confirms he had number 63L all the way through his employment with the police, including 1888.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Interesting that the bobbies weren't patrolling in pairs, especially in the notorious Dorset Street, by this late stage in the murders?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                      Excellent, David. Thank you very much.

                      Rouse appeared as witness in two Old Bailey trials, 1884 and 1886:

                      https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brow...=t18840915-982
                      https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brow...=t18860308-403

                      Interesting indeed!!!

                      Curious how he appears to have slipped through the net of history as being one of the bobbies "involved" in the case. Especially when you consider how many bobbies where drafted in, I wonder what other examples await to be found.


                      Also like PC Long he appears to have kept his original divisional number and letter, does this suggest that he was only posted there briefly perhaps only for one shift, where as bobbies posted there long term where issued with number H division numbers?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Would also be interested to know any case Old Bailey or otherwise, which weren't related to the murders but concerned Whitechapel area events that none Whitechapel bobbies found themselves embroiled in? Surely some of the "hundreds" of bobbies drafted in must have stumbled across other crimes being committed, that resulted in them being summoned to give evidence in court?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by The Station Cat View Post

                          Also like PC Long he appears to have kept his original divisional number and letter, does this suggest that he was only posted there briefly perhaps only for one shift, where as bobbies posted there long term where issued with number H division numbers?
                          These officers were not transferred to H division, they were only on loan as a temporary assignment, be it weeks or months they keep their own division identification.
                          Neil could obviously provide a more detailed explanation.
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            So we can assume then that the PC saw nobody in Dorset street in his pass on either side of 2:30 am (Lewis did not see a PC),it was deserted and therefore his report was insignificant.He must have passed early 2 am or late 2 am missing Hutch's 45 minute wait and so his report was not usable to dismiss Hutch.

                            "We can assume the constable saw nothing of consequence to the inquiry." Wickerman

                            A PC walking his beat including Dorset St. that early morning was irrelevant inquest testimony,its hard for me to believe but I guess go with the assumption.
                            Possibly also he was tied up by police duties along his beat and could not pass in relevant times in Dorset St.
                            Last edited by Varqm; 07-28-2017, 01:06 PM.
                            Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                            M. Pacana

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                              Thank you Monty.

                              Morton appears in the Old Bailey transcripts as 63L as early as 1849.

                              I would find it highly unlikely that he was still in the police force 39 years later.

                              Even though the man depicted is an old geezer

                              I just wondered since varqm mentioned it being him seemingly as an established fact.
                              Hey Kattrup

                              63L is a Constable I briefly looked at some years ago but never really followed up. So I commend David, yourself and others for the work you've all done here

                              An interesting aside, this is from JtR Forums, a small thread on Murder Mags (an interesting character to say the least) who proposed the idea that a Constable actually witnessed a murder and fled.

                              http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=17593&page=2

                              Monty
                              Monty

                              https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                              Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                              http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                                So we can assume then that the PC saw nobody in Dorset street in his pass on either side of 2:30 am (Lewis did not see a PC),it was deserted and therefore his report was insignificant.He must have passed early 2 am or late 2 am missing Hutch's 45 minute wait and so his report was not usable to dismiss Hutch.

                                "We can assume the constable saw nothing of consequence to the inquiry." Wickerman

                                A PC walking his beat including Dorset St. that early morning was irrelevant inquest testimony,its hard for me to believe but I guess go with the assumption.
                                Possibly also he was tied up by police duties along his beat and could not pass in relevant times in Dorset St.
                                I specifically mentioned the inquest because if the PC saw the loiterer (Hutchinson?) then that only confirmed Lewis, so by itself does not add anything to the testimony. He may or may not have been there when Lewis walked down the street.

                                If the PC also noticed the couple that Lewis saw then as the presence of this couple was not believed to be significant at the inquest then there was again no reason to call the PC just to have him say he saw a man & woman in Dorset street.

                                The significance of this man & woman only came to light after the inquest when Hutchinson gave his statement to police.
                                I would imagine the police will review the beat constable's pocketbook on the evening of the 12th in an attempt to confirm that part of Hutchinson's story.
                                They also had the choice of visiting Lewis at home to even bring her to Commercial st. to meet Hutchinson. Not that they did, but they have the choice to do that if deemed necessary.

                                The potential role for this constable was likely of no significance on the 12th at the inquest, this is why we hear nothing from him. Yet, only hours later when Hutchinson came forward the role of this PC may have been of major significance in Hutchinson's story, but if so, we will never know.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X