Two statements on Chapman murder - Bell and Waldron

[Chris Scott]

I don't remember seeing either of these statments about the Chapman murder before and can't find either character in the A-Z
Both date from 9 September 1888

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Easter%202011/bellstatement.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Easter%202011/waldronstatement.jpg

[Chris Scott]

Two other short statements about Chapman's murder from the same source:

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Easter%202011/thimbleby.jpg

[Chris Scott]

The last of the short statments from the same article. This includes another variant of Albert Cadosch's name, calling him Cadosen:

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Easter%202011/cadosen.jpg

[Roy Corduroy]

Chris, this is on CaseBook Press Reports. Lloyds, Sept 9. Thanks for putting it up here.

(Not like I recognized it because I know all the articles on there. Ha! I used the search feature.) :)

Roy

ps: its a huge clip that Sept 9 Lloyds. For those interested - Both Tim Donovan of Crossinghams who was interviewed about the murder, and another TD was in Lloyds that day -

"THAMES.
DISGRACEFUL BEHAVIOUR OF BROKERS' MEN. - George Britain and Robert Cooper, brokers, were charged with forcibly breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Timothy Donovan, a labourer, of 47, Stebendale-street, Cubitt-town. ..."

[Mags]

I think it's interesting that Mrs. Bell supposes that the killer is the same one who committed "the others".

Besides Nichols, which others is she referring to?

[How Brown]

Chris:

Thanks for posting this article....somehow I overlooked four contentions in this piece when I read it yesterday....and everything in it when I read it some time ago.

1. That this article specifies the gender of the voice in regard to what he heard ( the word "No" ). No mention of the gender is mentioned in the Times version of Chapman's Inquest.

2. That in addition to the word "no"...Cadosch states he heard "some words that I did not catch.." During his appearance at the subsequent Inquest, no mention was made of any other words (conversation) being heard. I must admit that this is the first time I ever saw Cadosch being quoted as stating he heard something other than the word "no".

3. That the mention of what he describes as a 'scuffle' appears in the article you found. No such comment is found in his Inquest deposition. There's a significant difference between a "scuffle" and "something falling against the fence" in my book...

4. Furthermore, he also states rather alarmingly (IMHO) that it sounded like "someone seemed to fall heavily on the ground"...giving one the impression that he knew exactly where the noise came from.


This is not the picture in any way,shape,or form one gets when they read what he states at the Inquest...in fact, it seems as if he was withholding evidence at the Inquest if you ask me.

His statements at the Inquest give the impression that he heard one word, one bump, and that he was not certain from which yard ( he states he "believed" it emanated from # 29) the voice came from.

This story that Chris located in Lloyd's is remarkably different.

He now states he heard a woman's voice say "no"...someone hit the ground heavily, and most importantly, what sounded like a scuffle which is a far cry from a "bump on the fence".

Is it possible that Cadosch did withhold evidence ( the comments in the previous paragraph ) in order to not get involved any further ?

Is it possible that Cadosch knew that there was something going on, perhaps not a murder, but a man roughing up a woman...a few feet from him ?

What, if this is an accurate account, does it say about her killer ?

Anyone ?

Thanks for bringing this up Chris....because I have actually read ( Lloyd's is my "favorite" newspaper of the period) this article before...but did not pay attention to it.

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Howie,

It sounds to me like a typical case of sticking with just his own recollections when speaking at the Inquest, but making certain understandable assumptions when talking to anyone else, eg the papers.

I doubt there is anything to be read between the lines here. Most likely he simply grew convinced that what he heard was indeed the murderer with his victim and blended what he had actually heard at the time (which was not a lot and had evidently not alarmed him) with the gruesome details he heard about after the event, making one correspond with the other.

Hindsight tends to do that to witnesses, and we are left to judge the likelihood of Mr. C having heard anything other than poor Annie slumping to the ground courtesy of Jack.

Love,

Caz
X

[How Brown]

Caz:

Thanks for your opinion...which I would think most others would agree with...even Nina thinks its a case of me "reading into" this...or even that the newspaper embellished whatever Cadosch told their reporter.

On the other hand, mentioning that you heard " someone seemed to fall heavily on the ground " or that you heard a "scuffle " might make a witness during the Inquest look poorly in light of what happened to Chapman and in the eyes of his friends and neighbors. Apparently this article wasn't an issue after its publication in terms of Cadosch being pressed further on anything else he may have overlooked at the time of his appearance at the Chapman Inquest.

I don't know Caz...I'm on the fence about this one, yet completely understand your p.o.v.

[Nemo]

He does seem much more certain that the murder was taking place at that time in this quote - is his inquest testimony toned down so that he wasn't directly opposing the medical opinion regarding an earlier time of death, whereas he didn't mind embellishing it a bit for the press?

It might call into question whether he heard anything in the first place, or just injected himself into the enquiries later

If this story is anywhere near the truth then it does indeed point toward a Ripper killing in near daylight at a time when discovery was imminent due to people rousing from sleep and the number of people in the vicinity. He must have carried out the mutilations almost certainly knowing Cadosche was just a few feet away

Mrs Long's description would be valid and perhaps the words spoken

I would love that to be the case as there are a number of implications that could be drawn from the encounter witnessed outside 29 Hanbury St (or a few doors away) and her description of the suspect

His "escape" unseen via populated streets is perhaps remarkable

The timing of the Ripper washing his hands would be post 6am which would exonerate some suspects who, if I remember correctly, were noticed returning/cleaning up around 3-4am

[How Brown]

He does seem much more certain that the murder was taking place at that time in this quote..
I get the same vibe,Nemo.

He must have carried out the mutilations almost certainly knowing Cadosche was just a few feet away...

...and vice versa...emphasis on the word "must'.

I would love that to be the case as there are a number of implications that could be drawn from the encounter witnessed outside 29 Hanbury St (or a few doors away) and her description of the suspect

When possible, please elaborate Neems..

[Nemo]

Well, Mrs Long's description would be valid, his dress, him being "dark" and him looking and sounding like a foreigner

Also, the Ripper here has accosted or been accosted by the victim and is well enough spoken and dressed to encourage her to enter the passageway with him

It negates the blitz attack with no interaction scenario (in Chapman's case)

The "Will you?" question is spoken by the Ripper, perhaps suggestive of him knowing the goings on in Hanbury St and being aware of the route through the passage into the back yard

If the Ripper is out at night, why did it take him until daylight to find a victim?

He appears to be a dark, shabby genteel foreigner - a Jew?

He did not appear angry or manic

[Stephen Thomas]

Well that's a new one. A skull cap eh? And no coat at 5am.

9019

[How Brown]

Interesting indeed,Stephen.
I don't recall the reference to Waldron whatsoever.
Is this an example of a potential witness being overlooked ?

If the Ripper is out at night, why did it take him until daylight to find a victim?

He did not appear angry or manic..


That is certainly puzzling, Nemo, to me...because you would think that by looking at what the killer did to Chapman, he would have been animated, visibly so...and as to the possibility that he had been out all night or out for some time before locating Chapman,why, indeed, does he proceed, knowing that people were obviously ( and obviously to him, which is what counts most ) going to be up and about at that time ?

[Chris Scott]

I think this report may possibly have both the man's initial and name of the pub wrong in that a man of the same surname was landlord of a pub much better known to us!

1881 Census
33 Church Street, Spitalfields
The Ten Bells Public House
Head: John Waldron aged 60 born Ireland - Licensed victualler
Wife: Eliza Waldron aged 40 born London
Children:
Bedelia aged 12
Margaret aged 11
Edward aged 8
John aged 7
Louis aged 1
Martha aged 2 months
All born in Spitalfields
John Waldron is also named as landlord of the Ten Bells in 1871

The only E Waldron in this family is Edward who in 1888 would have been only 15 years old

Two questions:
1) Can anyone confirm that John Waldron was still landlord of the Ten Bells in 1888?
2) Was there a pub in 1888 "on a corner" by Spitalfields market named the Three Bells?

I think it most likely that the real witness here is J Waldron from the Ten Bells, not E Waldron from the Three Bells.

[Chris Scott]

This report was previously known. In the original version of the A-Z there is this entry under the section on the Ten Bells:
"It was widely rumoured that Annie Chapman had been seen in a pub near Spitalfields Market at about 5.00 a.m. on the morning of her murder, until (as the East London Advertiser reported) a man with a very ugly face wearing a skull cap poked his head round the door and summoned her out. The Manchester Guardian, without identifying the woman certainly, attributed the story to 'the potman at the Ten Bells.' The man's description fits Edward McKenna, arrested by police on 13 September 1888."
Maybe the 15 year old Edward was working in his father's pub as a potman

[Chris Scott]

I have had the info below very kindly supplied by Simon Wood:

Hi Chris,

According to the 1888 Post Office Directory John Waldron was landlord of the Ten Bells at 84 Commercial Street.

From the same directory–
Golden Heart, 110 Commercial Street, Mrs Charlotte Cakebread.
Queens Head, 74 Commercial Street, Richard Dipple.
Princess Alice, 42 Commercial Street, Arthur Ferrar.
Britannia, 87 Commercial Street, Walter Ringer.
Commercial Tavern, 142 Commercial Street, William Blumson.
No sign yet of the Three Bells.

[Paul]

The pub in question was the Ten Bells. The Echo (8 Sept) reported briefly on the pot-man's story: "As late as five o'clock this morning it is said the woman who is at present unidentified, but is supposed to have been one who frequents the streets of the neighbourhood, was drinking in a public-house near at hand called the Ten Bells."

The Star on the same day gave the wrong name and location, "It seems that the crime was committed soon after five. At that hour the woman and the man, who in all probability was her murderer, were seen drinking together in the Bells, Brick-lane. But though the murder was committed at this late hour, the murderer – acting, as in the other cases, silently and stealthily – managed to make his escape."

Moving ahead in time, the Croydon Advertiser on 15 September 1888 reported: "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. The local public and beer houses are doing a brisk and merry trade. The Ten Bells where Walter, the barman, tells the numerous enquirers that he served the dead woman with something at a quarter past five in the morning, and she was found a corpse extended and exposed at six, is crammed, and the people can hardly move; but in the immediate neighbourhood of Walter himself they are packed like sardines."

The Daily Telegraph reported on 17 Sept that McKenna could not be identified as the man with the skull cap: "Similarly the potman from the Ten Bells public-house could not identify him as the man who had angrily called a woman out of the bar on the morning of the murder; "

There are a number of reports about the sighting, particularly regarding McKenna.

A small, unconnected item but involving potmen concerns the "can" of beer the blotchy-faced man was seen to be carrying into Kelly's room and the question of what happened to it: "The beer can incident is being inquired into. Though there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of Mary Anne Cox's testimony - it was this witness who saw the man carrying a beer can while accompanying the deceased to her home at midnight - it is a remarkable thing that the can was not discovered in the room. It is not now believed for a moment that the murderer took it away with him. The only other explanation is this: - In the lowest parts of the East-end, as in other districts of ill-repute, it is the practice of women of the unfortunate class to take beer home with them at night, and then place the cans outside their doors. These are collected by potmen in the morning. Inquiries are now being made by Inspector Moore, Inspector Beck, and Detective-sergeant Thicke as to whether any potman in the district collected a can from outside Kelly's room. " (Echo, 13 November)

[Chris Scott]

Many thanks Paul for the very full info
Much appreciated

[How Brown]

It is not now believed for a moment that the murderer took it away with him. The only other explanation is this: - In the lowest parts of the East-end, as in other districts of ill-repute, it is the practice of women of the unfortunate class to take beer home with them at night, and then place the cans outside their doors. These are collected by potmen in the morning. Inquiries are now being made by Inspector Moore, Inspector Beck, and Detective-sergeant Thicke as to whether any potman in the district collected a can from outside Kelly's room

News to me...thanks Mr. B !

[Nemo]

The description of the man who called Chapman out fits the "real" Leather Apron, who is described as wearing a close fitting cap, having a sinister expression and repulsive smile, and possessing strong Jewish facial features

[Mags]

So if the man who poked his head around the door was indeed the WM, this would lend some credence to the idea that he made plans witht he victims ahead of time instead of randomly picking them up on the street.

[How Brown]

Good point Mags....in this instance.
There's no real way to determine if all the murders were perpetrated in such a fashion because one might have been....which I, of course, know that you know.
Considering that the Chapman murder was committed the latest, in terms of time, you might be right in what you suggest for this murder.

[Mags]

Actually, Howie, it doesn't sit right with me that he made advanced plans so this account throws a monkey wrench into my preconceived notions--probably a good thing now and then.

[Paul]

It is not now believed for a moment that the murderer took it away with him. The only other explanation is this: - In the lowest parts of the East-end, as in other districts of ill-repute, it is the practice of women of the unfortunate class to take beer home with them at night, and then place the cans outside their doors. These are collected by potmen in the morning. Inquiries are now being made by Inspector Moore, Inspector Beck, and Detective-sergeant Thicke as to whether any potman in the district collected a can from outside Kelly's room

News to me...thanks Mr. B !

Hi Howard,
Efforts were made by the police to establish when and where Mary Kelly was drinking that night, especially with the blotchy-faced man, and I think they drew a blank. If so, it throws Mrs Cox's story into doubt - whether she had the right night or not, or even whether what she told actualy happened. It's worth comparing Kelly's state of drunkenness when seen by Mrs Cox with Hutchinson's claim that she was not drunk, but spreeish when he met her.

[How Brown]

Thanks for that Paul....

Its not only such an aggravation and time consuming endeavor for dedicated Ripperologists to track down facts about Kelly...but within a matter of hours, we find contentious witness statements from at least three people ( Cox,Maxwell and Maurice Lewis).

One could expect you and I having a faulty memory over an event you and I witnessed thirty years ago. We could get the time of day wrong...a number of factors wrong...but the overall facts in order.

Yet..again...in a matter of hours or 2 or 3 days...whichever...we find such contrast and unintentionally misleading, false, or mistaken ( assuming here that the three were simply mistaken ) statements being presented relative to such a horrific event. Its surprising because when we experience these sort of events, one usually has command of all their faculties ( i.e., where were you when JFK was assassinated ?).

[Dave James]

Hi all,

This may help with 'skullcap man':

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Easter%202011/Edward20MKenna.jpg

[Stephen Thomas]

A man wearing a skull cap and called McKenna? Whatever next?

[How Brown]

ST:

That's what threw me off when read what Chris Scott posted....McKenna I am familiar with, but it didn't mention his name along with the skull cap.