Announcement

**Joshua Rogan** · 06-12-2016, 09:11 AM

That's interesting Jerry, I'd not heard before that the vault itself had a 'loose plank ceiling'. But they can't have been all that loose if it was so dark inside.

What I was trying to say was that there was more to the basement area than just the vault where the torso was found. The works extended for at least 80 yards (that's how far the body was said to be from the entrance on Cannon Row).

**jerryd** · 06-12-2016, 09:29 AM

Here is yet another version of the inquest. This one explains that Bugden was sent to fetch the parcel and had just got it out. Sounds like it was dragged to the daylight.

London Standard October 9, 1888

**Pierre** · 06-12-2016, 09:31 AM

[QUOTE=Elamarna;384245]

Mr Wildborn appears to contradict himself. In that he says his tools were stored in the vault, but he also says this had stopped 3 weeks before.

Hi Steve,

Here is a description which can throw light over the story about the tools. It is from the Morning Post Tuesday 9 October 1888, so it is one day later.

I�ll read the rest of your post and perhaps comment on some more parts of it.

Regards, Pierre

Attached Files

**Elamarna** · 06-12-2016, 09:40 AM

[QUOTE=Pierre;384278]

Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

Hi Steve,

Here is a description which can throw light over the story about the tools. It is from the Morning Post Tuesday 9 October 1888, so it is one day later.

I�ll read the rest of your post and perhaps comment on some more parts of it.

Regards, Pierre

The point is Pierre that it depends on which report you read, the telegraph says he had been storing it here, but had stopped, and even this version is not 100% clear, its down to interpretation.
This is the problem without the original report.

However the report does make it clear to see anything, you had to have a light. It seems they often just used matches from the various reports, lamps are mentioned when they are searching for something, it seems they are not working there at present.

Steve

**Pierre** · 06-12-2016, 11:20 AM

[QUOTE=Elamarna;384245]

Charles William Brown:

“[Coroner]Do you think previous knowledge was required to get to the vaults? - Yes, I do. I first saw the parcel about half-past two o’clock on Tuesday afternoon. I had been in the vaults on the Monday, but had not noticed any smell. I was there in the dark. On Tuesday the first witness called my attention to the parcel. He struck a light, and I saw in the corner what looked like an old coat with a piece of ham inside. I procured a lamp, and the parcel was afterwards got out and opened. “

This very interesting, firstly he suggests the perpetrator was not a stranger to the site.

Hi Steve,

It could also be interpreted like this: "The perpetrator was no stranger to getting into a vault". I.e., he could have had the previous knowledge required to break into a vault. Another interpretation is "The perpetrator knew where the entrance to the vault was."

The coroner and the witness said: "Do you think previous knowledge was required to get to the vaults? - Yes, I do."

So to be able to change situation A "not being in the vault" to situation B "being in the vault", previous knowledge was required. But the witness did not say he thought the knowledge consisted of knowing the vault from the inside, he just said previous knowledge was required to get there..

Also, this is what a witness believes. So it is questionable for that reason. When I say questionable I mean we have to perform source criticism on it. But I haven�t done that so I can�t say if this source has a tendency.

Earnest Edge

In his first piece of testimony

“I struck a match, but nothing was in the vault then. I went across the trench, where we were measuring on the Friday. On the Saturday I was in the very corner where the parcel was discovered on the Tuesday. “

Firstly he is saying he used only a match to see his way around

In his recall testimony he is sure it was not there:

“The Coroner: Do you think it possible that the parcel was there without your seeing it? - I am sure it was not there."

However in his first testimony he gives a very strange answer:

[Coroner]There was no parcel there on the Saturday? - No. I might have been near the vault on the Monday; I certainly was on the Tuesday.

He seems to be distancing himself from the discovery.

The Morning Post has "Hedge, recalled, asserted emphatically that on the Saturday previous to the discovery there was no parcel in the vault".

Now we reach the medical evidence

Great! This is your discipline, Steve!

Mr. Thomas Bond:
“I was called to the new police buildings, where I was shown the decomposed trunk of a body. It was then lying in the basement partially unwrapped. I visited the place where it had been discovered, and found that the wall against which it had lain was stained black. The parcel seemed to have been there for several days,”

He says it was decomposed, not decomposing or partially decomposed, the wall was stained, this is important.
Several days can mean anything and is not helpfully

And the decomposing could have started long before the piece was placed in the vault.

“The date of death would have been from six weeks to two months, and the decomposition occurred in the air, not the water.”

This is again important.

Yes, indeed.

Mr. Charles Alfred Hibbert

A piece of paper was shown to me as having been picked up near the remains, and it was stained with the blood of an animal

Could be important.

They couldn�t separate animal blood from human blood with high reliability, or could they?

Inspector Marshall

The corner from which it had been taken was pointed out to me, and I saw that the wall was a great deal stained. Examining the ground I found the piece of paper alluded to by the last witness, as well as a piece of string, apparently sash-cord. Dr. Hibbert handed me two pieces of material which had come from the remains. I at once made a thorough search of the vaults, but nothing more was discovered. On the following morning, with other officers, I made a further search of all the vaults, but nothing more was found nor anything suspicious observed. The piece of paper spoken to forms part of an Echo of Aug. 24.

The wall was a great deal stained.

The blood marked paper was 24th Augusts, if the blood was related to the murder it may give a hint as to the earliest deposition date.

Rather the date of the making of the parcel.

However, there was no testing available to tell if the blood was human or animal, so this must be disregarded.

"From the stain on the wall I certainly thought several days, but the witness Edge told me he was sure it was not there on the previous Saturday."

There is the suggestion in this statement that he initially believes the body had been there longer than since Saturday, but his view is coloured by the statement of Edge.

So having now looked in depth at the report, and baring in mind that of course we are using newspaper reports and not the original we can make a few observations:

1. It was dark:
So dark in fact that an artificial light source was needed.
George Budgen, Charles Brown and George Cheney, all say a lamp was required.

Detective Hawkins says artificial light would be need to find ones way to the area if one were a stranger.

Charles Brown also says he was there on Monday, but noticed nothing, no smell, it was dark.

However Wildborn says he first saw the parcel on Monday morning, while searching for his tools, but did not think it important, thinking it was old clothes. He does not say what light source he used.

It was so dark, that even with a lamp, the discoverers had to move the body from the recess it was in to see what it was.

Edge says he went to get a hammer, it seems he knew where this was, has he only struck a match and did not need to search for it. It is entirely possible he did not see the parcel, or if he did only peripherally , not noticing it as he was not interested in it.

2. We seem to have a discrepancy with the testimony of Wildborn, he tells the coroner he went to look for his tools, however in the same testimony he says

"For some weeks until the last three weeks."

I think the Morning Post throws light on that.

He also is at pains to distance himself from the cellar area

" I was not there for a week before."

Could be that he actually was. The "distancing" is an interpretation.

He also says he finally told his foreman about the parcel on Tuesday at 1pm, having seen it 3 times previous to this, once with a friend lighting a match to look at it. (The friend is not named)

However according to Brown, when he was taken to see it, it looked like a coat with ham inside, he claims Wildborn lit a match and they looked at it. Did they not discus what they saw?
Did Wildborn not see what Brown saw?

Wildborn was not that close?

Wildborn says they go to look at it after he tells Brown about it at 1pm. However the parcel is apparently not looked at properly until some 2 hours later, and Wildborn is not present.

Something here is wrong, it does not fit.

One step closer to an interesting comment from me...!

2a. Something is wrong with much testimony on the issue of the discovery.

One step closer to an interesting comment from me...!

Wildborn says he told Brown at 1pm and they went to look.

But says he was not present when opened.

My comment now: In this example we can see how Fisherman works with his interpretation of witness testimony! As soon as you have differing statements, it seems to be "suspicious", doesn�t it?

But that is not enough. You need to find a tendency. And it must be valid and reliable. These are historical sources, not a police inquest!

Brown says Wildborn lit match and they looked at it.
Brown then got a lamp and the parcel was moved and opened

Cheney says Brown came to see him, they got lamp, but could not tell what the parcel was, so moved it into daylight.

However we are told it was dark even in the middle of the day, so how was daylight available?.

Budgen says he was told to examine it, at about 3pm, which he did, but needed to drag it into the light.

However Cheney and Brown suggest they moved and examined the parcel, so who did?

Why did it take 2 hours from Brown first being told of the parcel and going to look and it finally being check .

Budgen, and Cheney both say they move the parcel into daylight, Brown says “it was got out”

But the Police and Bond imply the body was still in the vault basement, which was dark.

Something here is wrong!

Maybe they were all killers?

3. Several witness report no smell, this is very odd.
Even if freshly dumped there would be some smell, however both Bond and Marshall make it clear that the wall was badly stained, not just marked but stained.
I would argue that such would not happen in only one or two days, and for the wall to be stain, decomposition is taking place onsite.
There must be the smell of decomposition present.

Interestingly this lack of smell is only mentioned by those working on the site, not the Police or Medical witnesses.

So something is linking the men working on the site! What?

4. Related to point 3 Bond says the body was decomposed, not decomposing.

He further gives his opinion that the body is up to two month dead.

It had not been treated, there are no deep freezer facilities. The body would smell in that case.

Are we to presume it has been kept somewhere else and then moved in the last few days?

5. Of the workers Wildborn and Brown say it would have to be someone who knew the site, that the body could not be planted by a stranger, Detective Hawkins agrees

That, however, is not the exact wording, Steve, as you know!

6. All except Edge go to some length to say they have not been there in over a week until the discovery.

To sum up

The cellar area was dark, it was easy not to see things unless you were looking for them (Wildborn and Brown) the body could have been missed.

The body was according to Bond decomposed, and had been there long enough to stain the wall.
The comment about no smell is just not medically possible, so why say that?

The work force were suggesting it was dumped by a non stranger- one of them.

AHA!!!!!!!!

Edge gives some very strange testimony when he is first called.

Another Mize Scam!!!!!!

Wildborn gives conflicting testimony on the storage of his tools.

NO.

Everyone else goes to lengths to say they had not been there often over the previous weeks, only Edge saying it was visited daily.

There is a tendency to evade, to distance themselves from the vault before Monday. Apart from Edge who locked up on Saturday.

Like Lechmere, standing in the middle of the road!

There is a further tendency to obscure the actual finding of the torso.

Like the actual Lechmere, "found with the body"!

The evidence given about moving and opening of the parcel, Seems confused at best, and possible intentionally misleading.

Misleading? This is actually how witness statements often look. People are afraid, people do not want to get involved, people misremember.

But suddenly, like magic, they become serial killers or murderers, "found with the body!". Or "misleading, obscuring the actual finding of the torso, distancing themselves and giving conflicting testimony"!

So I wonder, surely this has been seen before? What are others views?

Dear Steve. You are one of the smartest here and I certainly hope you will see that it is the sources that are "misleading" and "obscuring" and not some poor working men in 1888, working to build the new police building and not being so foolish as to bring a dead body to work.

Like Lechmere, they are working men. Like Lechmere, they did not kill on their way to work and they did not hide a piece of a dead body at work.

I am sure you realize all this and see how easily we all can get carried away - like Fisherman - with these types of sources. That is what these sources do, and that is why there is ripperology.

Best wishes, Pierre

**jerryd** · 06-12-2016, 12:02 PM

Steve,

I'll leave you and Pierre alone on this one. Good thread topic, though.

**Pierre** · 06-12-2016, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by jerryd View Post

Steve,

I'll leave you and Pierre alone on this one. Good thread topic, though.

I follow you on this one Jerry. Not very interested in the Whitehall inquest and I have very little time at the moment. But good thread for those who are interested in the topic, Steve!

Regards, Pierre

**jerryd** · 06-12-2016, 01:16 PM