Window Removal

[Jane Coram]

interpretation of 'evidence'

Hi Wickerman,

I don't think that anyone on this thread is pursuing any kind of argument, people have just been making different suggestions and thoughts on the topic, and most seem to be agreeing that it's very open to debate and just an interesting aside to the case that might give us a bit of an insight into police procedure at the time.

Every discussion on this board is based on meagre evidence, and if we only discussed things that had solid evidence to back it up, then we would be talking about knitting or model cars most of the time.

The fact is though, that the newspaper reports don't really contradict the official documents, they just give extra information, even if it is a bit confused in sequence and garbled sometimes. The report in the Pall Mall Gazette 10th November simply says:

Dr Phillips, the divisional surgeon of police, and Superintendent Arnold were also sent for. On the arrival of the latter he caused a telegram to be sent direct to Sit Charles Warren, informing him what had happened, and Inspector Abberline, who had already arrived, despatched a message to Sir Charles Warren to bring the bloodhounds. Mr Arnold, having satisfied himself that the woman was dead, ordered one of the windows to be removed.

There is a great chunk of information missing here, and that could simply have been because the text had to be edited to fit in the available column inches. Even looking at what it does say with regards to the window, it could have been talking about a single window pane . . . Witnesses were called to indentify the body through the window, and it would have been a lot easier for them to view it without the broken glass there. The same could be said for the removal of the lower half of the window frame, which would have made it even easier.

The suggestion that they wouldn't have taken the window out because they wanted to preserve the scent, is a good suggestion, but unless her killer exited through the window, then the trail the bloodhounds followed would be via the door. Crowds were held back to avoid trampling over the scent through the court. There would not really be any reason not to remove a part of a window.

The East London Advertiser of 17 November 1888 goes a step further:

The police were sent for, and Superintendent Arnold, having satisfied himself that the woman was dead, ordered one of the windows to be entirely removed.

Again, this could be interpreted in quite a few ways. Was it a whole window frame, a window panel? a window pane? It could be taken to mean that because the glass was broken in the pane, he ordered the rest of the bits to be taken out so that people didn't cut themselves on broken glass and could see through more easily.......the wording doesn't preclude that.

The Times 10th November says the same thing, and of all the newspapers the Times was certainly one of the most consistently reliable. We have to at least take the suggestion that some part of a window was removed seriously, even if we later dismiss it. Apart from which, we need to find something to talk about!

Bestest

Jane

xxxx

[Chris Scott]

The answer to this may be quite simple
The newspaper article I posted earlier, and to which the original post on this thread refers, merely says that Arnold ordered the window to be removed
I know of no press report that says that this was actually done
Arnold arrived at the scene at approximately 1.30 p.m. and Phillips said: "I remained until about 1.30 when the door was broken open I think by Mr. McCarthy - I think by direction of Superintendent Arnold who had arrived."
I would suggest that the sequence of events may have been that on Arnold's arrival he was apprised of the fact that the door was locked. He may have ordered the window removed as a means of entry but this was not actually done, and the forcing of the door was undertaken as a more effective means of access to the room
Chris

[Robert]

I can see why the police might have wanted to remove the window. Surely if you're going to photograph a crime scene, you'll do it preferably before anyone - doctors, police, or even photographers - have disturbed it, and the way to do that would have been to do it through the window. This would have given police their only undisturbed crime scene photo. So even if the window wasn't removed, perhaps it should have been.

[Wickerman]

I can see why the police might have wanted to remove the window. Surely if you're going to photograph a crime scene, you'll do it preferably before anyone - doctors, police, or even photographers - have disturbed it, ...

Robert.
I read that Dr Phillips said he had photo's taken. This left me with the impression that the photographing of the yard, room and body was more of a medical initiative. The police were certainly in charge of the crime scene so they absolutely would have been present while the photographer took his pictures. All at the behest of Dr Phillips.

Regardless, if you do a Press Report Search on "photographer" you will bring up a series of reports which set a chronological sequence in order.

The door was broken open, several doctors entered to examine the body & condition of the room.
Dr Phillips sent for a photographer. Photographs were taken of the body and room in general before an insitu autopsy was undertaken by Phillips, Bond, Gabe, and "two or three other surgeons".
The autopsy began around 2:00 pm and lasted aprox. 2 hrs, after the autopsy the photographer removed his equipment from the room (approx. 4:30 pm)

Regards, Jon

P.S.
The photographer who had been called to photograph the room and the body removed his camera from the premises at half-past four, and shortly afterwards a detective office carried from the house a pail, with which he left in a four-wheel cab. The pail was covered with a newspaper, and was stated to contain portions of the woman's body. It was taken to the house of Dr. Phillips, 2 Spital-square. The windows of the room where the crime was committed were then boarded up and a padlock put on the door.
The Echo, Nov. 10th, 1888.

[Jane Coram]

Hi Chris,

That makes a lot of sense.......it's amazing how many different ideas people can come up with, which all seem very viable. I quite like that one. It just shows how old newspaper reports can be interpreted in so many ways. It's an art form all in itself!

Hugs

Jane

xxxx

PS, those Scotsman transcripts have been brilliant, hope you've got more tucked up your sleeve, (although that would be very uncomfortable. Lol)