Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Annie Millwood

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

  • Annie Millwood

    m_w_r
    Police Constable Join Date: Nov 2007
    Posts: 14


    An Alternative Annie Millwood - Ann[i]e [East] Perry

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their recent The London of Jack the Ripper - Then and Now, Robert Clack and Philip Hutchinson present their reasons for believing Annie Millwood to have been, in fact, a Fanny Millwood.

    They identify a Richard and Fanny Millwood living in St Pancras in the 1871 and 1881 censuses; and they explain that neither of these people can then be found in the 1891 census. This supports the known date of death of Annie Millwood, and her given status as a widow, recorded at the date of her admission to the Whitechapel Infirmary. They also identify a son of the above Richard and Fanny Millwood: George, born in 1880. (A scan of the BMD registers suggests that George may have been at least this couple's third child, two others - Richard Millwood [1874q3] and George Richard Millwood [1878q2] - having died in infancy in the years indicated.) Lastly, they observe that, if the census data can be trusted, and if they have identified the right woman, Fanny / Annie Millwood was actually 47 at the time of her attack, although she is recorded as 38 on admission to the Whitechapel Infirmary.

    The surname "Millwood", however, offers us a variety of phonetic approximations and alternative spellings. We can hypothesise that Annie Millwood's surname was variably spelled; that this may be the cause of her general invisibility in the known historical record; and that she may therefore be detectable after all.

    In the second quarter of 1872, in Chelsea, one Richard Milward married Annie East Perry. Neither of these people is consistently visible in the historical record, either, but here we have a scenario which fits our hypothesis. And there would seem to be some mileage in it. In the 1871 census, Annie East Perry seems to have been living at 10 St Peter's Road in Mile End Old Town. She was 17, and unmarried. The census notes that she was born in Islington. She may well be the same person (listed as Anne Perry) who was resident at 44 Bridge House Place at the time of the 1861 census (in which she is recorded as eight years old). Using these data, Ann[i]e would have been born in 1853 or 1854; and so she would have been 34 or 35 at the time of her attack, which is close-ish to her reported age in 1888.

    Without knowing more about these Milwards, it is impossible to know whether the hypothesis truly stands up. I have not been able to trace the birth of the Ann[i]e [East] Perry to whom I have been referring - an Ann East Perry was born in St Giles in early 1844, and another in Greensted in Essex in January 1805, but neither of these women can really be thought to be identical with our younger Ann[i]e, and the latter, at least, would seem a very unlikely candidate to be getting married in Chelsea in 1872.

    More research is obviously necessary - and I mean no disrespect to Clack / Hutchinson, whose book is really excellent. But I would be interested to hear contributors’ views about this alternative Annie...

    Regards,
    Mark Ripper

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Last edited by m_w_r : 12th December 2007 at 01:17 AM.

    m_w_r
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to m_w_r
    Find all posts by m_w_r

    12th December 2007, 01:58 AM
    George Hutchinson
    Superintendent Casebook Supporter
    Join Date: Jan 2006
    Location: Guildford, Surrey, England
    Posts: 1,945




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hi Mark. That piece of research was down to me. It is indeed a possibility; I can't disregard your idea as being untenable simply due to a different spelling of the surname as I am depending personally on a different first name AND date of birth whereas you have a different surname and date of birth. Obviously, I'm hoping my suggestion's the right one as I'd hate there to be any grating errors in the book (I've found a few small ones that are the result of typos or publisher errors, but nothing major) but I don't think either can be proven.

    I do think, however, that the fact that Richard is not in the Census prior to 1871 might aid the idea of him having been a serving soldier at that time. Also, the fact that the son of Richard and Fanny was living in Hampshire (the county of Richard's origin) by 1891 although still a child suggests both parents had died fairly young before then. Both have disappeared from the 1891 Census and the son, Richard, is back in London as a young man.

    There's no reason for either of our suggestions to be wrong. I just feel the one I discovered has a little more evidence (albeit circumstantial) to confirm what we have as received knowledge at present.

    PHILIP
    __________________
    Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!

    George Hutchinson
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to George Hutchinson
    Visit George Hutchinson's homepage!
    Find all posts by George Hutchinson

    12th December 2007, 12:52 PM
    bobhinton
    Chief Inspector Join Date: Jan 2006
    Location: Kidwelly
    Posts: 789


    Census Returns

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "Beware the Census, my son!
    The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
    Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
    The frumious Bandersnatch!"

    This of course is excellent advice for any researcher. The census is supposed to be an accurate record of people inhabiting these isles on a certain date, unfortunately they turn out to be a hodge podge of information that is literally at the whim and the wiles of the census taker.

    For example you will search the 1881 in vain for George Hutchinson born 1859 in Shadwell. However stick in ‘Geo’ Hutchinson and up he comes. A slight misspelling of the person’s name can throw you completely out.

    The appearance or otherwise of a certain person in a certain census is not a strong indication of their existence. They might simply be away from their normal abode; they might have gone abroad for a myriad of reasons. Sometimes people who you know without a shadow of a doubt should appear just don’t.

    One person I wrote about was a certain Thomas Henry Sweetman who committed a murder in 1900 aged 16. He was alive in 1901 without a doubt but simply does not appear anywhere.

    If anyone finds him I would be most grateful. (Thinking back I believe Abberline doesn’t appear in the 1881 either)
    __________________
    Bob Hinton
    www.darkdeedswales.com

    bobhinton
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to bobhinton
    Visit bobhinton's homepage!
    Find all posts by bobhinton

    12th December 2007, 04:26 PM
    Just peachy
    Inspector Casebook Supporter
    Join Date: Feb 2007
    Posts: 208




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hi Mark
    May I just ask a couple of quick questions regarding the interesting information you have provided above? Just to get it clear in my own head.

    1. Regarding the 1872 Chelsea marriage between Annie East Perry and Richard millward. Is there any reason why Annie East Perry concerned in that marriage couldn't also be the Ann East Perry b 1844 in Bloomsbury? (knocking on a bit granted, but not exactly over the hill for a marriage)

    2.Does the actual entry for St Peter Road in 1871 give the name as Annie East Perry? I have looked at it and there is an E with a bit of a squiggle above it, but I can't make it out properly but can't see it as East either.

    3.Could the Annie E Perry b Islington on the 1871 St Peter Road entry (if it doesn't say East of course) be Ann Eliza Perry registered June qtr 1853 in Islington?

    Thanks
    Debs

    Just peachy
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to Just peachy
    Find all posts by Just peachy

    12th December 2007, 05:05 PM
    suzi
    Chief Superintendent Join Date: Jan 2006
    Location: Wickham
    Posts: 3,149





    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hi Bob-just as a by the by......

    As to Abberline I still find it almost beyond belief that there's no recognised photograph of our Fred in existance..it IS odd isn't it when it seems that every copper around at the time, no matter how lowly, seems to be in a photograph and credited somewhere.

    Perhaps Fred himself is disappearing into mythology
    Suz x
    __________________
    '
    "Time spent with a cat is never wasted"
    -Sigmund Freud

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Last edited by suzi : 12th December 2007 at 05:12 PM.

    suzi
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to suzi
    Find all posts by suzi





    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

    I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

  • #2
    Hi Bob,

    I believe Abberline was in the 1881 census. He was down living (or he might have been working there that night, can't remember which) at Commercial Street Police Station.

    All the best

    Rob

    rclack
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to rclack
    Find all posts by rclack

    12th December 2007, 11:19 PM
    m_w_r
    Police Constable Join Date: Nov 2007
    Posts: 14




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Just peachy
    Hi Mark
    May I just ask a couple of quick questions regarding the interesting information you have provided above? Just to get it clear in my own head.

    1. Regarding the 1872 Chelsea marriage between Annie East Perry and Richard millward. Is there any reason why Annie East Perry concerned in that marriage couldn't also be the Ann East Perry b 1844 in Bloomsbury? (knocking on a bit granted, but not exactly over the hill for a marriage)

    2.Does the actual entry for St Peter Road in 1871 give the name as Annie East Perry? I have looked at it and there is an E with a bit of a squiggle above it, but I can't make it out properly but can't see it as East either.

    3.Could the Annie E Perry b Islington on the 1871 St Peter Road entry (if it doesn't say East of course) be Ann Eliza Perry registered June qtr 1853 in Islington?

    Thanks
    Debs


    Hi Debs –

    Taking your questions one by one:

    1. Good call. In my previous post I suggested that the Annie East Perry who was living on St Peter Road in 1871 at the age of 17 cannot have been the Ann East Perry who was born in St Giles in 1844. I stick by this part: the places of birth are not the same (although one can always make some allowances in this matter); but there is a serious discrepancy in the ages of the two women, beyond even the eccentric imagination of the census enumerators, in my view. However, as you correctly point out, this is not to say that the 1844-born Annie cannot have got married to Richard Milward in 1872. Perhaps she did – I will try to check this out further. Until more information comes along, however, I am tempted to stick to my choice of the 1853/4 Annie as the one marrying in 1872. I find the specific and deliberate use of the diminutive form “Annie” [a] in the 1872 marriage register, and [b, only about a year earlier] by an unmarried London woman in the 1871 census, to be somewhat persuasive (although hardly conclusive).

    2. I cannot decipher the squiggle after the E on the 1871 census either. It would seem not to belong to the m of William, on the line above her – there is another William a few doors away at number 13, and he has not got any such squiggle on the end of his name. Whatever it is, it seems to belong to Annie. It does not certainly stand for East, although East is not ruled out either.

    3. If the E isn’t for East, then it could stand for any other female name beginning with E, including a number which must be considered to have been substantially more common than East. The Ann Eliza Perry you have identified obviously comes into the frame at this point.

    I think I need to go to the Family Record Centre this weekend. All your points are entirely valid (although I’m still sticking to my hypothesis for the time being). Until we have the 1872 marriage certificate I don’t think we are ever going to be anywhere near sure who is who. And we may not be afterwards either ... Bit of a mystery at the moment, isn’t it?!!

    Thanks for taking an interest in this research.

    Mark

    m_w_r
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to m_w_r
    Find all posts by m_w_r

    13th December 2007, 04:03 PM
    Just peachy
    Inspector Casebook Supporter
    Join Date: Feb 2007
    Posts: 208




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hi Mark
    Thanks very much for answering my questions, and no, you shouldn't give it up your hypothesisjust yet.
    I wasn't sure if you had the marriage certificate already and knew the age of Annie East Perry who married Richard Milward. (btw the marriage was 10 JUN 1872 Saint Luke, Chelsea, London if that helps)

    The only problem I had with the idea that the 1871 Annie E. census entry is the bride is the rarity of the middle name East as opposed to the commonality of middle names such as Eliza, Elizabeth etc. I would suspect that the two ladies who appear with that specific name Annie East Perry in the records, would probably be related in some way and that no-one else on earth would consider giving their child the middle name East unless it was a family name being passed along. (But that's is just my own personal opinion, and I admit I could be very wrong!!) I would have gone for Richard Milward marrying the lady born as Annie East Perry in Bloomsbury in 1844. Looking at the certificate would be a very good idea though I think, It would give an age for Annie East Perry at least....there could be a few more of them about for all we know!

    I was interested in your Milward idea as opposed to Millwood as there is an Ann Milward aged 30, married b Essex, in the 1881 census, she's a prisoner in HMP at Westminster....and like soooo many others, she disappears by 91 too!

    Thanks again anyway, and good luck with the research
    Debs

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Last edited by Just peachy : 13th December 2007 at 04:05 PM.

    Just peachy
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to Just peachy
    Find all posts by Just peachy

    13th December 2007, 05:27 PM
    cats meat man
    Inspector Join Date: Oct 2007
    Posts: 384




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hi All,
    Interesting thread,Mark.Slightly off topic but relevant to Deb's post is the following:
    Recorded in the 1891 census in the cells at Stockton On Tees Police Station:
    Annie Chapman
    Age 41
    Widow
    Occupation Tailoress
    Born London
    In charge of the police station is Superintendent Joseph Bell who was involved with the Miss Cass Case 1887,with a letter he had sent concerning Elizabeth Cass.
    Now,it was Annie Chapman that was discovered in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street,wasn't it?
    Of course it was!
    Wasn't it?
    All the best
    Rob

    cats meat man
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to cats meat man
    Find all posts by cats meat man

    20th December 2007, 10:54 PM
    m_w_r
    Police Constable Join Date: Nov 2007
    Posts: 14




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is a transcription of a marriage certificate I received today from the Family Record Centre. Words and phrases in italics are hand-written on the marriage certificate. Richard Milward's particulars are given first, and separated from those of Annie East Perry by a semi-colon:

    Marriage solemnized at the Parish Church in the Parish of St Luke, Chelsea in the County of Middlesex.

    No. 905
    When Married. Richard Milward; Annie East Perry
    Age. 38; 25
    Condition. Bachelor; Spinster
    Rank or Profession. Soldier; [none given]
    Residence at the time of Marriage. 12 Charlotte St; 12 Charlotte St
    Father's Name and Surname. Thomas Milward (deceased); Thomas Perry (deceased)
    Rank or Profession of Father. Farmer; Solicitor

    This Marriage was solemnised between us, Richard Milward, Annie East Perry in the Presence of us, Henry Barnes, Ann Barnes.

    Interesting?

    Mark Ripper
    ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

    I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Debra A View Post
      Interesting?
      Yes, quite. Is there one conclusion from the above data?

      Also interesting is the saved thread of discussion from a few years back under:

      Victims
      Annie Millwood
      Message Boards: Annie Millwood
      Annie Millwood - was she or wasn't she?

      Roy
      Last edited by Roy Corduroy; 05-16-2008, 05:59 PM.
      Sink the Bismark

      Comment


      • #4
        The data and research in this thread is the work of Mark Ripper (mwr)
        The thread was only retrieved by me (the quote you attributed to me was actually by mwr) , from google's cache after the last casebook crash and may not make as much sense as it originally did.
        ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

        I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

        Comment

        Working...
        X