Emily Horsnell

[Keith Murray]

It seems like a good time to place Emily Horsnell among the victims with a separate sub-forum.

The Victims forum generally includes canonical, suspected canonical and possibly associated cases, all together. The timing, location and circumstances of Mrs. Horsnell's case offer interesting dotted-line links to a surprising number of people and issues, as people here and publications have reported.

I'll forgo filling in many other details just yet (although these are rather limited), since anything I would add would be copying and pasting or quoting others' commentary and work, some of which appears here and elsewhere (Debra Arif especially was behind the discovery of the news story in Lloyd’s Weekly, 13 Nov 1887, with Sam Flynn locating an 1881 census record for her.). I'll be happy to pull some of it here (with credited citations) if it's okay with original posters. Having certain related things in one place can help newcomers such as me! The basics:

Emily Horsnell (Horsnail), nee Atkins

Born: @1861

Residence: 19 George Street, 3-4 years (lodging house, owner John Satchell; Martha Tabram also had lived there, and Emma Smith had lived at 18 George Street)

Assaulted: @ Saturday, 5 Nov 1887; returned home “Saturday night” after being out drinking; reported having been “kicked about the stomach by some men”

Died: Thursday, 10 Nov 1887, of peritonitis with underlying cause being kicked/beaten.

[Debra Arif]

Thanks for the credit, Keith and welcome to the boards.
I agree this is a fascinating area of study, just a pity there wasn't very much written about the case at the time.

[Howard Brown]

Keith:
Thanks for setting this thread up ! Good man.
Debra Arif deserves beaucoup credit for locating Emily Horsnell.....she's been 'sitting there' for over 125 years....but not anymore due to Debs.

[Tom_Wescott]

Good idea, Keith. Because there was never an autopsy performed, we don't know what killed. I suspect she suffered more than kicks and punches. I find John Satchell's involvement particularly suspicious, although such suspicions are pure supposition on my part. What is not supposition is the unfortunate way Horsnell's death was handled by authorities. The coroner made absolutely no attempt to disguise the fact he knew a woman had been murdered, but since the police had no intention of investigating, he had no intention of spending his limited budget on a proper autopsy. Likewise, because the coroner returned an 'open' verdict, and not the proper one of 'murder', the police were not obligated to investigate. And since Horsnell was not officially murdered, she did not find her way onto the Whitechapel murders list. Had her case been handled properly, she would be the first WM.

Only Lloyd's covered the case. That's another tragedy here. Even in 1888, most people were ignorant of her murder. I believe that at the time, some considered Margaret Hames' violent attack to have been related to the murder of Emily Horsnell and the two became confused. Eventually, the fictitious name of 'Fairy Fay' was added to this victim. But yes, Emily Horsnell is the 'missing' Whitechapel murder victim.

Then the question becomes, was she a Ripper victim? I'd say that if you consider Martha Tabram a Ripper victim, then you have to take on Emily Horsnell and Emma Smith as well. If you don't consider Tabram a Ripper victim, then there's no need to do so.

But Polly Nichols was killed one week after the termination of Martha Tabram's inquest. Likewise, The 'double event' occurred after the prolonged inquests into Nichols and Chapman ended. I find that timeline pretty intriguing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Keith:
Thanks for setting this thread up ! Good man.
Debra Arif deserves beaucoup credit for locating Emily Horsnell.....she's been 'sitting there' for over 125 years....but not anymore due to Debs.

Debra also deserves much credit for what she hasn't found, and that's additional news reportage on the murder of Horsnell. I know she's searched high and low for reports other than the one in Lloyd's she discovered. The fact that she hasn't discovered any others probably means they never existed.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Howard Brown]

But Polly Nichols was killed one week after the termination of Martha Tabram's inquest. Likewise, The 'double event' occurred after the prolonged inquests into Nichols and Chapman ended. I find that timeline pretty intriguing.

Tom Wescott

It may well mean something, Tom...thanks for bringing it up.

[Tom_Wescott]

But Polly Nichols was killed one week after the termination of Martha Tabram's inquest. Likewise, The 'double event' occurred after the prolonged inquests into Nichols and Chapman ended. I find that timeline pretty intriguing.

Tom Wescott

It may well mean something, Tom...thanks for bringing it up.

Maybe, but I don't think so. Following Nichols' murder, the killer didn't feel any heat, and he went and killed Chapman. But then he chilled out and waited for the inquest to end before killing again. That might suggest the police got a little hot during the Chapman investigation.

Likewise, Polly was killed the next weekend after Tabram's inquest ended.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra Arif]

Good idea, Keith. Because there was never an autopsy performed, we don't know what killed. I suspect she suffered more than kicks and punches. I find John Satchell's involvement particularly suspicious, although such suspicions are pure supposition on my part. What is not supposition is the unfortunate way Horsnell's death was handled by authorities. The coroner made absolutely no attempt to disguise the fact he knew a woman had been murdered, but since the police had no intention of investigating, he had no intention of spending his limited budget on a proper autopsy. Likewise, because the coroner returned an 'open' verdict, and not the proper one of 'murder', the police were not obligated to investigate. And since Horsnell was not officially murdered, she did not find her way onto the Whitechapel murders list. Had her case been handled properly, she would be the first WM.

Hi Tom,
According to a 2011 post by Dave O, financial consideration wouldn't have been an issue in a case like this. A post mortem should have been done.

But I think this case you've found is different, and is outside the bounds of the financial conflict. There's a clear question of whether or not a murder has been committed, and one where I think the costs of a postmortem would have been well warranted, and not an example of the coroner overstepping his bounds as the magistrates might have seen it. So I don't think this is one the magistrates would have disallowed expenses for. It's because an inquest turns up new information that the coroner had the power to order a postmortem anytime during the process--and if he didn't, or if the jury had no confidence in the medical witness, they could check the coroner's discretion and even ask for someone of their own choosing, and the coroner would have to do it. That's procedure going back to The Medical Witness Act 1836, which was incorporated into The Coroner's Act 1887 pretty much unchanged.

So, while it's true that any coroner would face pressure to keep expenses down as John said, this case is one I don't understand and wonder why they went for the open verdict and didn't exercise their option to adjourn for further medical evidence.

[Debra Arif]

p.s. I'm not sure it was just reported in Lloyd's. I think there's a brief outline of the case summarized in a few lines in a couple of other papers but I couldn't find an account any more detailed than Lloyd's was what I probably meant.

[Debra Arif]

I also did wonder if there was the possibility that there was some sort of attempt to cover-up of an illegal operation in Emily's case?

[Robert Linford]

One thing this shows is the incredible toughness of people in those days. There is no reference to groans or screams and yet she must have been in agony.

[Debra Arif]

One thing this shows is the incredible toughness of people in those days. There is no reference to groans or screams and yet she must have been in agony.

That's certainly true, Robert.

On a re-read, I just realized there was evidence of kicking so that probably rules out my previous thought about an abortion.

There was a similar case in Southwark earlier in 1887. The woman concerned claimed to have been beaten to the ground and kicked about by a man she didn't know, later on she did name him. Her lodging house deputy sent her on to the hospital, unlike Satchell, but she died of peritonitis too. Police inquiries didn't come to much, they were looking for someone to charge with manslaughter rather than murder. Again there was no post mortem as far as I can tell but haven't looked too closely at it yet. The jury brought in an open verdict. Perhaps Emily would still have had the same inquest verdict even if circumstances had been different?

[Robert Linford]

Hi Debs

I just can't get my head round this manslaughter thing. I wonder if there was some statistical massaging going on - keeping the number of murders (especially unsolved ones) low.

[Dave O]

Hi Debs, Robert and Tom,

Been awhile since I've seen Emily, but murder or manslaughter by person or persons unknown is an open verdict. I don't think it would have been "found dead" on what evidence they did have. Her death certificate ought to show.

Cheers,
Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

That's certainly true, Robert.

On a re-read, I just realized there was evidence of kicking so that probably rules out my previous thought about an abortion.

There was a similar case in Southwark earlier in 1887. The woman concerned claimed to have been beaten to the ground and kicked about by a man she didn't know, later on she did name him. Her lodging house deputy sent her on to the hospital, unlike Satchell, but she died of peritonitis too. Police inquiries didn't come to much, they were looking for someone to charge with manslaughter rather than murder. Again there was no post mortem as far as I can tell but haven't looked too closely at it yet. The jury brought in an open verdict. Perhaps Emily would still have had the same inquest verdict even if circumstances had been different?

Hi Debs, that's what I mean. The doctor, just on his exterior examination, determined to his own satisfaction that she died from inflicted injuries. That's murder or at the very least, manslaughter. The doctor decided against an autopsy because the police stated they didn't intend to investigate the matter. So perhaps it wasn't of budgetary concern, although to me that seems the most reasonable explanation. The other explanation is sheer laziness or hopelessness!

Hi Robert,

Yes, she would have been in agony and I'm sure there was a lot of moaning and crying.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott