I thought it might be a good way of discussing one of the most nagging elements of the Case ( at least to me at the moment ) by starting up this Forum.
This initial post comes from the Inquest of Mary Ann Nichols,conducted on September 3rd,1888 and provided by The Times. It may be found on page 39 of the Ultimate.
Let me preface this thread before I begin....
Recently,Tom Wescott has been providing valuable excerpts from other papers that covered the victim's Inquests and some of these statements were previously overlooked by me ( perhaps you too? ) since I did not read any of the other newspaper accounts of the Inquests much to my current chagrin.
One such excerpt dealt with the "sprinkle of water" mentioned by James Kent ( in relation to the Chapman murder) which has been discussed here and on Casebook.
Another was in regard to the same murder and dealt with the gender of the voice that Albert Cadosch heard as he turned back into 27 Hanbury Street.
I could add others,but these will suffice since they are good examples of the differences in the Times and other Inquest accounts.
For some,this thread or Forum may seem like a "wild goose chase" since some of the excerpts found or not found in these Inquest reports aren't earth shaking or "proof" of anything other than an oversight at that time. I understand that.
However,there are some issues here that I hope others will find worthy of contributing to.
One such issue deals with the aforementioned Nichols deposition and is in regard to the testimony of Henry Tomkins.
Tomkins worked on Winthrop Street,one street over from Bucks Row ( where Nichols was found ) at a slaughterhouse.
This initial post comes from the Inquest of Mary Ann Nichols,conducted on September 3rd,1888 and provided by The Times. It may be found on page 39 of the Ultimate.
Let me preface this thread before I begin....
Recently,Tom Wescott has been providing valuable excerpts from other papers that covered the victim's Inquests and some of these statements were previously overlooked by me ( perhaps you too? ) since I did not read any of the other newspaper accounts of the Inquests much to my current chagrin.
One such excerpt dealt with the "sprinkle of water" mentioned by James Kent ( in relation to the Chapman murder) which has been discussed here and on Casebook.
Another was in regard to the same murder and dealt with the gender of the voice that Albert Cadosch heard as he turned back into 27 Hanbury Street.
I could add others,but these will suffice since they are good examples of the differences in the Times and other Inquest accounts.
For some,this thread or Forum may seem like a "wild goose chase" since some of the excerpts found or not found in these Inquest reports aren't earth shaking or "proof" of anything other than an oversight at that time. I understand that.
However,there are some issues here that I hope others will find worthy of contributing to.
One such issue deals with the aforementioned Nichols deposition and is in regard to the testimony of Henry Tomkins.
Tomkins worked on Winthrop Street,one street over from Bucks Row ( where Nichols was found ) at a slaughterhouse.
Comment