Two Section Left
Just two section still to be posted in part 2.
Baxter and The Press.
Steve
-
Bucks Row Project part 2 post 17a - Police
We now come to looking at comments by the Police, on the whole, not already covered in other tables.
We have a mix of press reports from early in the inquest, which are duplicated in the Spratling table, but are included here as well.
There are Press reports from later in the inquest, involving more than a single officer and a handful of Official Police Reports.
I shall start by looking at these official reports first.
The first Official Report is number 8 from the table, dated 7th of September by acting Superintendent Davis, it gives a little background information on Nichols, and mentions leather Apron, this before the murder of Annie Chapman.
The second Report, 9, also dated the 7th is from Helson/Keating this has already been covered in the Helson table, I include it again because on second reading I noticed one of those coincidences so beloved by many, William Nichols was employed by Messrs. Purkiss Bacon & Co., Whitefriars St. E.C. (my emphasis)
The next Report 10 is by Abberline and Swanson and has several interesting points, it gives a full report of the events surrounding the discovery of the body of Nichols, including the carmen, and there meeting with Mizen.
From here we can see the timing is given as about 3.40, we will see that in report 11 this is given as 3.45 and some argue this shows a revision on the part of the Police thinking. It may do or it may just be imprecise timings, these reports still contain error as we shall see, and I humbly suggest that we cannot therefore be sure of the timing the police preferred.
It also confirms the meeting between The Carmen and Mizen was at the corner of Hanbury Street/Old Montague Street, this suggests the southern side of Hanbury Street, but is open to debate.
It further says they acquainted him (Mizen) with what they had seen, he proceeded towards the site but found Neil was already there, and that he was signalling for assistance.
Both he and PC Thain responded.
Similar is repeated in Report 11, Mizen is told but before he arrives Neil has found the body.
What is glaringly missing he is Mizen’s claim that he was told he was required by another officer, it is not even mentioned, it is airbrushed out of the account.
This suggests at the very least the police did not accept it has being accurate report of events, viewing it possibly as a misunderstand, it seems this was the line they indeed took, as no action was taken against Mizen for lying that we are aware of.
We have a details of Mizen going for ambulance from Bethnal Green Police Station and returns with it and other officers including Spratling and the body is then removed to the mortuary, this is mistaken as Spratling says he is not at Bethnal Green Police Station but in Hackney road, and arrives after the body has left the scene. (Spratling Table Reports: 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14 &15).
The report with regards to the injuries, may draw on Spratling report (Spratling Table Report 1) however it is not clear. We see it stated that Llewellyn said the abdomen wounds alone could cause instantaneous death. And he believes they were inflicted before the neck wounds. This must be noted, however one must point out that nowhere does Llewellyn in any source actually say what the wounds are, this has been very hotly debated and we be again in part 3 surely, when I will look at it in depth.
The report goes on to give various background detail, and includes her last known movements, including the sighting by Holland at 2.30am.
We next have a section on the slaughter men, however the report is clear that their accounts are:
“confirmed by the Police who saw them at work”
Is the use of “Police” here singular or plural? Does it actually make a difference to the murder?
This again in Part 3.
we then have discussion on the Chapman case before the following is produced:
“Bucks Row is a narrow quiet thoroughfare frequented*by prostitutes for immoral purposes at night and no doubt the yard of 29 Hanbury Street has been used for a similar purpose.”
unfortunately no source is given to back this statement up. However when seen in conjunction with the attempts of Mrs Green to say there are no “women” about in Bucks Row, one does wonder if this is indeed based on fact, and could explain both Nichols presence and the reputation spoken of by Paul amongst others.
Moving on to report 11 dated 19 October by Swanson, apart from the sections already touched on above, we have the description of the wounds, this appears to be almost directly lifted from the report of Spratling 31st August (Spratling Table Report 1), with one exception; there is now no mention of the abdomen wounds being first or causing instantaneous death this is either a strange omission and a reassessment following the closing of the inquest and possible further enquires. However it is now also said that the doctor is no longer sure of the killer being by a left handed person
This is followed by details of her last sighting at 2.30am and further reports that despite extensive searching there is no other of sighting of her
The slaughter men are mentioned again, made clear all interviewed separately with no means of communicating, this suggests all were done at same time, or in series with those not yet interviewed kept separated.
Also it confirms their accounts are supported:
“in some portions by the Police on night duty near the premises”
The same questions apply here as to the comments in report 10
lets now look at the inquest reports, we begin with the early dated Reports 12,13 & 14 these are also included in the Spratling table
These tell us that sergeant Enright told the mortuary men not to touch the body.
He also says the cloths were in a heap in the yard Reports 13 & 14.
That “Lambeth Workhouse” labels had been removed by Helson, however from reading the testimony of the mortuary worker Hatfield (mortuary Table reports 2 & 3) it is more likely he Helson had them cut rather than cut himself. Reports 13 & 14 only.
Enright also says stays were present in good condition, but he was not sure how they were adjusted. Baxter says it is import to know this. Abberline suggests sending for the clothing(one assumes just the stays). Also only Reports 13 & 14.
Finally we move onto the later press reports of the inquest. Several points are raised here:
The main seen walking down Bucks Row while Llewellyn is there is mentioned but there has been no joy in finding him (Reports:1,3 & 5).
Spratling admitted not all houses had been spoken to yet, (2.5 weeks after event), Baxter replies this “will have to be done” in reports 1 & 3; in reports 2 & 7 Baxters comment is not repeated.
In reports 4 & 6 an extended version of Spratlings comment is given:
“ No; but if anything had come to light down there we should have heard of it. I have seen all the watchmen in the neighbourhood, and they neither saw nor heard anything on the morning in question. The Board school ground has been searched, but nothing likely to throw any light on the
matter was discovered.”
In report 5:
“Detective-sergeant Spratling deposed that he had made many inquiries in Buck's-row, but most of the people heard nothing unusual on the night in question. -”
We can see here the rank is wrong, minor point but indicating less than accurate reporting.
In Report 1 Spratling says despite extensive questioning no one heard a thing.
Spratling also now claims HE told mortuary men not to touch body (Reports:1 & 3) this appears to be at odd with his own testimony where he merely says he gave no instructions and that of Enright, (Reports 12,13 & 14). one wonders if this is a belated attempt to cover up actual failings.
Finally there is a question from jury, with regards to if railway could be means of escape (Reports: 1 & 5).
Overall Baxter appears frustrated and resigned to events.Leave a comment:
-
Bucks Row Project Part 2 post 16b - Spratling
We now move to Inspector Spratling, a few of the comments by Spratling given at the inquest on the 17th September do not appear on this table, but on the Police Table, the reason for this being that those comments appear as a series of comments to various officers.
We start with another Official Police Report, dated 31st August and this is Spratling’s initial report of the murder and the examination by Dr Llewellyn.
The first point is the description of the finding of the body by Neil, and that he gained the assistance of Mizen and Thain and that Dr Llewellyn arrived at the scene and made his initial examination.
There is no mention of the Mizen/Lechmere exchange or any indication that Neil was told of such. However this is a very early report and such may not have been reported at this stage, or indeed not included by Spratling.
Spratling then mentions he saw the abdominal wounds and informed Llewellyn.
Spratling then records the findings of the examinations by Llewellyn.
Two cuts to neck, vertebrae cut through he says:
“The windp[ipe] gullet and spinal cord being cut through, “
While this is obviously true for the windpipe it is a mistake for the spinal cord as recorded by Llewellyn in both his early statements and inquest testimony (Llewellyn table, Report 5. http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=53).
There are mentions of bruising to face and jaw and also of the abdominal wounds, there is mention on only one area of internal damage, several cuts to the Omentum, and 2 small stabs on privates. He also reports Llewellyn is of the opinion that the killer is left handed.
The whole section of report is very poorly punctuated, and it finishes by saying “death was almost instantaneous”, it is really not clear which of the wounds this comment applies to due to this lack of punctuation.
There follows a description of the the body but not of any blood on the clothing, which is a shame.
We finish with comments about Purkiss and Green plus a William Court(night watchman) another possible candidate for the men seen by Purkiss? He also mentions PC 81G.e.R
No one heard anything and confirms that Neil and Kirby passed Bucks Row at approx 3.15.
We now move onto the press reports of the inquest, these are numerous, often with mistakes and contradictions and analysis of this is somewhat difficult.
First point is however rather clear, Spratling says in was informed of the murder at about 4.30 in Hackney Road.
(Reports: 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14 & 15.), Reports: 3,10 & 12 leave out the information on the location but confirm the time. Report 4 has a typo and says 1.30!
He then says he goes to the murder site and meets 2 police officers (reports: 3, 10 & 12).
Other reports say one of these officers was PC Thain and that he and Thain went to the mortuary together (Reports: 2, 5, 6, 8, 11 &14). Reports 7, 9, 13 & 15 agree he met Thain but do not say that he went to the mortuary with him.
Two Reports 3 & 10 say that blood was being washed away at this point. I think it is more likely that this had just happened given the following information, which if the blood was still present would be somewhat superfluous.
All reports state blood staining was still visible if faint.
On arriving at the mortuary he found the body still on the ambulance (Reports: 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 14).
He carried took a brief description but noticed no wounds other than the neck (Reports: 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 14).
Only when the body was taken into the mortuary did he discover the full extent of the wounds (Reports: 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 14).
Report 4 only says he went and noticed the wounds.
Some reports give a limited description Reports 2, 3 & 5 say the bowels/intestines were exposed, while reports 2 & 5 also say the flesh was turned over from right to left. This suggests at the very least an attempt to form a flap, however we cannot be sure that this had not happened as a result of the movement of the body and the intestines moving forward and forcing the flesh to open.
This will be looked at in Part 3.
Comments are made about possible blood on the legs, Reports 2,3 & 5 saying no blood unless spot or so between groin and knees; while Reports 8 & 9 say none at all.
He comments that the skin is clean but does not appear to have been washed recently. (Reports: 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 & 15).
Spratling explains to Baxter that at this point he felt unwell in Reports 2 & 5.
Doctor Llewellyn arrives and carries out an examination (Reports: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 &14).
It seems this is of the abdomen only, this examination takes either 10-15 minutes (Reports: 6, 8, 9 &14) or just 10 minutes (Reports: 7 & 15).
That is where things start to become less clear.
Reports: 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 & 11 state that the body was stripped by 2 workhouse men, (Report 5 claims this was done to allow Llewellyn to conduct his examination, this is completely at odds with the accounts of Helson, Mann & Hatfield.).
Spratling states in Reports 6 & 14 he is not present when the body is stripped; however he is also reported as saying he saw 2 men stripping the body. (Reports: 10, 12, 14 & 15). The last reports are of course contrary to the reports of inspector Helson (Helson Table Reports :1-9, 12-15)
Spratling says he gave no instructions to undress the body(Reports: 8, 9 & 11), while in the Police section, he says he gave implicit instruction not to touch the body (Police Table reports 1 & 3), there is a difference and one is left to wonder why the stronger statement comes so late.
This becomes even more confusing when we see that sergeant Enright gives evidence at the same time as Spratling, literally jumping in or so it seems.
Enright says he gave instruction not to touch the body (Reports: 10, 12, 14 & 15 ).
Enright gives description of clothing in yard and of the workhouse label being cut out Report 15, which appears the same as that given by Spratling, one asks is there confusion who says what?
One assumes Enright arrived with the ambulance, and one wonders also if his name gets muddled when Spratling later talks of sending constable Cartwright to Bucks Row.
Mr Baxter now makes a series of comments which seem to say several things:
Officials should have been present to record condition of clothing. (Reports: 2, 3, 11 &15).
Needs to know position of clothing. (Reports: 8, 9, 14 & 15).
The condition of the clothing is important. ( Reports:10,12,15)
Baxter says that the men who removed the clothing need to be present, Report 5.
Returning to Spratling, he says when next he went to the mortuary the body was already stripped. (Reports: 2, 5 & 6).
This was around Noon,(Reports: 6, 8, 9, 13 &14) and that the clothing was in a heap in the yard (Reports: 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13 & 14), and is the same as Enright is reported as giving in Report 15.
There is a description of the clothing including the workhouse name being removed (Reports: 8,9, 13 & 14).
In most reports Spratling is not sure of condition of clothing and if fastened or not. In Reports 2 & 5 he says that he cannot say if stays are damaged or not.
Baxter has questions, were the cloths fastened correctly? (Reports: 8 & 9). Were the stays damaged? (Reports 2 & 3)
Spratling being unable to answer, a PC is sent to get the clothing (Reports: 2 & 11), apparently on the suggestion of Abberline (Reports: 7 & 15).
We now have a description of the blood on the clothing, one has to say it is not consistent.
Sprating says that Inspector Helson can tell more information on this, However Spratling noticed blood on the back dress (Reports: 8 & 9); However this is contradicted in reports 6 & 14 when he says there was no blood on back of dress or Ulster.
Report 3 just says he did not notice.
He is reported as seeing no blood on the petticoats (Reports 2,3 & 5).
Reports 2 & 3 say some on the chest part of dress, and some on front of chemise.
Report 5 says a little blood on the chemise.
Report 4 says some on breast part of dress. And on chemise and ulster, but noticed no other.
Report 15 says little on under linen.
There is blood on upper part of dress and clock (Ulster) (Reports: 3, 6, 14 & 15.).
There is some suggestion that some of this to the front of clothing is from direct contact with the abdominal wounds, Report 2.
There is some debate over if the stays were covering the wounds, if they were in place or if they were damaged.
Spratling then talks about the examination of the crime scene, this again is confusing, and it seems clear that Spratling is somewhat less concerned about blood stains than he is about finding a weapon.
In Reports 3 & 11 he says Thain was sent between 5-6am to Bucks Row, in Reports 10 & 12 a time is not stated.
In Reports 6 & 14 its a constable Cartwright is sent, who is this man who seems to be taking the place of Thain? Is there a confusion over names with Enright?
Something here must be wrong with the reporting!
It seems clearer when he goes with Godley, some Reports: 3, 6 , 8 & 9 say between 11-12 while other Reports: 10, 12 & 14 do not give a time. However he reports no weapon was found(Reports: 2, 3, 4, 9 & 11) while other reports say nothing was found (Reports: 10, 12, 14 & 15).,
Mr Baxter is more concerned about blood and tells Spratling this, Spratling in response confirms he found nothing, Knife, blood or any marks. (Reports: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 & 15).
He confirms the blood was washed away by an employee of Mr Brown, James Green. (Reports:2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 & 14).
Spratling visited half dozen people and none heard anything Report 15. These include Mrs Purkiss pacing her room (Reports: 3,10 & 12 or simply awake (Reports: 6,14 & 15) and fits with her inquest testimony.
Mrs Green is claimed to be up at various times from 3am until 4,30, this is at odds with her inquest testimony (http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...2&postcount=55 )
there maybe some confusing in the reporting with regards to Purkiss and Green.
Spratling then says another constable was near by at times during the night in Brady Street-PC Thain. However 2 typos say Broad street and Praed street, rather than Brady street..
Finally in Reports 2 & 11, Spratling claims that Neil’s beat took about 20 minutes, this is contrary to Neil’s own statements. And we will need to look at this further in Part 3 when looking at the beats of Police officers.
Overall the press reports are less than a shining example, there are many contradictions and some obvious mistakes, we will need to be carefully for instance when looking at blood on the clothing in Part 3.Leave a comment:
-
Just a quick update.
Due to a major laptop failure, the next group of posts will not now appear until probably Monday. Fortunately I back up everyday. So no work lost other than a few notes, however restoring takes sometime.
SteveLeave a comment:
-
Someone might have asked him "why the long face?"Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Leave a comment:
-
Any time I can be of service, Michael...Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View PostInteresting stuff again Steve especially with Gary's contribution. Unfortunately, with Gary mentioning a 'horse coroner', I now have the image in my head of an Inquest being headed by a horse! Cheers Gary
Leave a comment:
-
Interesting stuff again Steve especially with Gary's contribution. Unfortunately, with Gary mentioning a 'horse coroner', I now have the image in my head of an Inquest being headed by a horse! Cheers Gary
Leave a comment:
-
mortuary?
The discussion on the meat trade is truly fascinating and has the next part of the project will not be posted for a few days it's great.
However does anyone have anything to say on The Mortuary reports or Helson?
If so chip in please.
SteveLeave a comment:
-
Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
So perfectly possible that the inspector could check all the animals at the start of a shift and then move on to another establishment, or just go home.
Might explain why no mention of any inspector in the surviving documents. Police or Press.
Many thanks very interesting points
SteveLeave a comment:
-
I believe the official title was, 'Inspector of Houses (etc) for Horse Slaughtering'.Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
I've had no luck tracing whoever was in the position in Whitechapel in 1888. An earlier incumbent had been a publican named Benjamin Abley, the one time licensee of the Grave Maurice.
Over in Islington a 'farrier' named Caleb Hunt held the position for decades, although he had to reapply for the role annually. His application was generally rubber-stamped, but on one occasion several members of the Vestry Committee opposed his reappointment because he had briefly run John Harrison's yard while Harrison was ill. This was deemed to be a conflict of interests as he was meant to check that knackers weren't processing stolen or diseased animals. Hunt's successor was a Veterinary Surgeon, but he himself started out as a brush maker.
The inspectors received a fee for each animal they inspected.
I don't have the answer as to whether the slaughtermen themselves were paid on the same basis, but the legendary Potler who could kill and strip an animal twice as fast as any other knacker apparently pulled in a very decent wage and bedecked himself with diamonds.
Sad bugger that I am, I have some of the legislation covering the trade at home. Your thread has reminded me that I need to complete my collection.Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: