Alan Baird

These newspaper articles refer to ''William Thomas Piddington'' and especially his funeral notice gives an idea how much he was respected within the community. I think the first four attachments will refer to the funeral and another attachment is just to give an idea of the kind of articles that were published about him - of which there are quite a few. Just in case anybody notices - the Reverent T. B. Watkins, is just a coincidence and is not connected to Edward Watkins...................

''The story of City of London Police Constable 881 Edward Watkins and his friend Mr Piddington.'' The story begins on the 2nd of November in 1911 when the City of London Police received a letter from Mr Piddington requesting, if possible, the address of Ex-Police Constable Watkins who was in the force in or about the year of 1877. Mr Piddington of 26 Marine Parade, in Dover, also stated that Mr Watkins was ''living in a street or court leading out of Leadenhall Street'' in the year or about 1877. Mr Piddington also stated he had ''their photographs.'' The City of London Police immediately contacted Edward Watkins and explained the request for his address by Mr Piddington and Edward Watkins thanks the City of London Police for their assistance and confirmed that Mr Piddington was an old friend and that they had lost tourch quite a few years ago. I have attached photographs of the original records/letter from Mr Piddington to the City of London Police and these copies came from Edward Watkins original police personal file. I have seen it suggested, in the past, that the end of the letter is signed ''Mrs Piddington'' but that is incorrect and it is actually ''Mr Piddington.'' I would suggest that since William Thomas Piddington only married Mary Ann Elizabeth Bromley in 1886, that this proves she would have had no real knowledge of what happened in 1877. William Thomas Piddington also spent years serving in the Royal Marines and so was a strong man and in good health in 1911 and therefore would have no need for his wife to write on his behalf. William Thomas Piddington was an experienced military and civilian ''Bandmaster'' and so was used to making decision and dealing with all aspects of life etc. William Thomas Piddington also states he had ''their photographs.'' I believe, he possibly means, the photographs relate to Edward Watkins and his wife Elizabeth Watkins nee Pryke. Elizabeth Watkins may well be alive in 1877 but by 1881 she disappears from the records and had probably died. Again this all ties in with the dates of what do we know about the life and times of William Thomas Piddington. William Thomas Piddington was born in Woolwich, in Kent, on the 28th of January in 1861 and his parents were William and Susannah Piddington and he was baptised on the 7th of April in 1861 at St Mary Magdalene in Woolwich. In the England Census of 1861, his father William Piddington [31] is recorded as being employed as a ''Bugle Major'' in the Royal Marines. The family are residing at 31 Samuel Street, in Woolwich. On the 9th of October in 1874, William Thomas Piddington follows in his father's footsteps and joins the Navy as a ''Trumpeter'' with the Royal Marines and William is only 13 years old. Therefore by the period of 1877, William Thomas Piddington is only 16 years old and is stationed at the Royal Marine Light Infantry, 1st Division, Royal Marine Barracks, at Chatham and has served there for nearly 3 years. Police Constable 881 Edward Watkins, on the other hand, was born in St Pancras in 1842 and is now approximately 35 years old. So the individual/direct friendship between William Thomas Piddington and Edward Watkins due to the wide age gap, does not seem so likely but there is a second type of friendship which is much more plausible and that is ''Edward Watkins was a friend of the Piddington family.'' William Thomas Piddington's parents were William Arthur Piddington [1829-1890] and Susannah Pidington nee Bunting [1833-1892]. William Arthur Piddington enlisted as a boy into the Royal Navy on the 1st of April in 1845 and completed 2 years and 302 days before leaving the service. On the 11th of March in 1852, he then joins the Royal Marines as a musician and he marries Susannah Bunting in 1854 and his son William Thomas Piddington is born in 1861. William Arthur Piddington completes over 17 years as a Royal Marine musician [Bugle Major] and is discharged in either 1869 or 1870. In the England Census of 1871, William [Arthur] Piddington is recorded as being employed as a ''musician'' and the family home is at 8 Merlins Place, in the Parish of St James Clerkenwell. On the 23rd of November in 1872, the London Daily Chronicle carried a story regarding Mr W Piddinton [Bandmaster] and that his good work over the last 2 years has earned him the Local Government Board approval for his salary to be increased from £40 to £50 per annum. In 1881, we find several newspaper articles that recorded Mr W Piddington as the ''St Pancras School Band, Leavesden, Bandmaster.'' In the England Census of 1881, we find William [Arthur] and Susannah Piddington are residing at 53 Reverdy Road, in St James Bermondsey, in Southwark and he is recorded as being a ''teacher of music.'' Therefore the family connection between Edward Watkins and the Piddington family starts with William Arthur Piddington who was residing in the area from 1870 and covers the period to 1877 and beyond. The Bandmaster was responsible for training the band in the art of music and his son would have almost certainly have performed in the band, up until he left the area in 1874. There is also a strong connection with Edward Watkins and St Pancras, as he was born there in 1842 and he probably went to school there in his early years. William Arthur Piddington was the Bandmaster for the St Pancras School Band and he probably held this position for many years. In Victorian times these bands were very important and would have performed all summer etc and were the highlight of any event. As for his son, ''William Thomas Piddington,'' he went on to be a Band-Sergeant and then a Bandmaster and a very successful one at that. There are many newspaper articles recording his achievements in this field and he retired as a Royal Marine Sergeant [musician] on the 13th of April in 1905. The family home was listed as being 158 Folkstone Road, in Dover. In the England Census of 1911, William Thomas Piddington [50] is recorded as being a ''Navy Pensioner and Teacher of Music.'' The family home is at 26 Marine Parade, in Dover. Mary Ann Elizabeth Piddington [wife] is recorded as being a ''lodging housekeeper.'' On the 5th of February in 1915, William Thomas Piddington dies of cancer of the tongue, aged 54 and the family are still residing at 26 Marine Parade, in Dover. [Edward Watkins had died two years earlier in Romford in 1913.]

HI, This is my final post. The first picture I have attached is of Edwin Brough, from the Northern Weekly Gazette, dated the 8th of October in 1898. I certainly would not have recognised him from this sketch. Portrait artists especially Victorian press sketch artists could make their subjects facial features softer and younger or harder and older and obviously there were differenced in their abilities and skill levels between these artists. Therefore I have come to the conclusion that the most common original sketch you find of Edward Watkins [marked A and attached] and which resulted in the modern artist pencil drawing of Edward Watkins [marked A and attached] are showing him in a slightly more younger appearance, than he really was in late 1888. I believe the original 'Catherine Eddowes Inquest' sketch which pictures Edward Watkins as being older and having a more weather beaten appearance, is probably a more accurate sketch. [marked B and attached]. Therefore I believe the Bishopsgate Police group photograph clearly shows 'City Police Constable 881 Edward Watkins is standing directly behind Sergeant Phelps,' on the left hand side of the photographs. [marked C and attached] I have studied the sketches available of Edward Watkins and other City of London Police and this is the only individual that comes close to matching Edward Watkins distinguished facial features and that is because he is 'Edward Watkins.'

Hi, 'Edwin Brough and he bloodhounds - could they really have tracked Jack the Ripper.' With hindsight, even if the bloodhounds had been available throughout Jack the Ripper's reign of terror, at what particular incident or period, could these bloodhounds have had the best chance of picking up his scent and tracking him. Hypothetically speaking, it would have been in the early hours of the 30th of September in 1888 when City Police Constable 881 Edward Watkins found the mutilated body of Catherine Eddowes. But not at 1.44am at the murder site in Mitre Square where all the Police activity was taking place but shorty afterwards, in a passageway near Goulston Street, in Whitechapel. Why - because at 3am a piece of fabric was found covered in Catherine Eddowes blood and faecal matter and this was discovered in a passageway which would have been approximately 15 minutes away from Mitre Square. Not at the main site, not many police there and the scent of the murderer would have been on the material. This site may have still been reasonable quiet [of Police and public] at that time in the morning and so the bloodhounds and their handler would have one of the best chances of tracking the murderer in this built-up area, in Whitechapel. [the above is just a bit of ''what if'' speculation].

Some more general points on Edwin Brough, bloodhound breeder. Edwin Brough was a very practical and successful businessman throughout his life but his real passion was breeding bloodhounds and even his wife Helen Brough [nee Graham] also helped with the bloodhound puppies. 'Burgho' [bloodhound] died in approximately 1893 and Edwin Brough had his skeleton preserved. The Victorian's and their taxidermy strike again. 'Barnaby' [bloodhound] not sure when he died but he was skinned but as the skin cured, the ears shrank to approximately a third of their normal size. Bad Victorian taxidermy. 'Champion Babbo' [bloodhound] who was valued at 300 guineas and died in 1901. Champion Babbo's head and skeleton was donated by Edwin Brough to the South Kensington Museum and this offer was readily accepted by them. The problem between Edwin Brough and Sir Charles Warren and the Metropolitan Police appears to have begun when Edwin was temporary away and his London bloodhound handler 'Edward Taunton' later informed him that the Police had taken one of the dogs to the scene of a burglary. Edwin Brough feared his uninsured bloodhound would then become a target for the criminals. Edwin Brough regularly participated and won bloodhound trials, participated and won major dog shows and regularly gave talks and lectures on the subject and was skilled in dealing with the press. Challinor and Shaw, Leek solicitors, were a family business that continued to be part of Edwin Brough' life in many ways ie J. Challinor was a witness at Edwin and Helen's marriage in 1882 and I have a business type letter from Edwin to them dated 1919. I have also attached a photograph of an advertisement which confirms they were operating from Derby Street in Leek in 1898 etc.

Hi, I now know the name that I was trying to decipher, and it is ''''Challinor''''' It comes from the firm, 'Messrs. Challinor and Shaw,' Solicitors of Leek, Staffordshire. Edwin Brough was born in Leek in 1844 and so this is the family solicitors.

Hi, Here we have a very nice smaller note, postcard size, on thicker paper/card and also embossed with Edwin Brough's address ie 'Wyndyate Nr Scarborough' and is dated the 22nd of January in 1896 which would be approximately seven years after the murders. It roughly translates to :- My Dear Challmir, Thanks for your of yest_. You would get a note from me this morn_ saying that --- --- --- --- to act. Sinc. yours Edwin Brough [Edwin does abbreviate his words like 'yesterday' 'morning' and 'Sincerely' and if you notice the letter 'r' in 'for' below the name Challmir, then these 2 letters appear to be written in the same fashion but I tend to take a long time to decipher these things. Any ideas most welcome.]

Hi and a brief summary of Edwin Brough. 'Edwin Brough J.P. and master of the finest bloodhound kennels in the world.' Edwin Brough was born in Leek, in Staffordshire, in 1844. In 1869, Edwin Brough became a partner in the family silk manufacturing company of 'Brough, Nicholson and Hall Ltd.' Edwin's grandfather founded he company in 1812. In 1871, Edwin Brough started to breed 'bloodhounds.' Around the period of 1881, Edwin Brough retired from the family silk manufacturing firm. In 1882, Edwin Brough, at the age of 38, married Helen Graham. [[1849-1923]. In 1885, Edwin Brough has 'Wyndyate' built and later is called 'Scalby Manor' and is near Scarborough. By 1888, Edwin Brough was the 'greatest bloodhound breeder and expert in this subject in England' and therefore Sir Charles Warren, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, requested him to come to London to advise an demonstrate on how to track Jack the Ripper. I believe, Edwin Brough did not have a great deal of faith that his bloodhounds would be able to track a scent effectively in such a built-up and busy area, as in Whitechapel. The bloodhounds would need to be on the murder scene almost immediately and especially before the Police contaminated the area with a large number of boots on the ground. I also think Edwin took his bloodhounds to London as much to please the public and also to educate them, as he felt there was much ignorance on the matter. He would be able to show how the dogs are trained and display the bloodhounds abilities to find and track the individual etc. In 1902, Edwin Brough dispersed his kennels and moved with his wife to Hastings, in Sussex. Edwin Brough then rented out [furnished] 'Wyndyate or later called Scalby Manor' for the next 16 years before selling the property in 1918. Edwin Brough died in Hastings in 1929.

Here is what I think the letter records but I am not very good at translating these old letters. Any assistance is much appreciated. Wyndyale, Nr Scarborough. E Brough bought adj. for £2,000. May 11/02. Dear Challmir, I thought you might like to look over encl. letter which I came across the other day, by way of reviving old memories. I don't want it back. After a hard tussle my offer of £1800 for the adjoining land has been accepted but I do not complete the purchase until I get possession of the whole either in Apr-/93 or Apr-/94 I don't know which got. As they elegantly expires if in this country ..... may ' on his hooks' he is much disgusted with himself. He accepted my offer of £2040 some time ago and then ran off in and he had a customer who was going to give him £2200 when they decided to build a small Pox Hospital near the back on E side of road and he declined. I am afraid I many not be able to get more than £60 rent but I fancy that it will prove a good investment in a shore time but is certainly worth much more to me than it would be to anyone else. Helen joins me in love to all Edwin Bough. [I am especially not sure if the name is 'Dear Challmir, or Challnir or Chalhmir or Chalhnir etc and there are parts of the text I found very difficult to read.]

Hi unfortunately I have not been on the site for quite a while. Anyway here is another post. Edwin Brough and his bloodhounds and the trials to prove they could hunt for Jack the Ripper. In the hunt to find 'Jack the Ripper' especially after the 'double event' had taken place, with the murders of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes on the 30th of September in 1888, Sir Charles Warren and the Metropolitan Police were under intense pressure to capture the murderer. It was City of London Police Constable 881 Edward Watkins who found the mutilated body of Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square, at 1.44am on that fateful morning. The newspapers were extremely critical of Sir Charles Warren, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, for his constant mishandling of the Whitechapel murders investigation and for failing to capture Jack the Ripper. The Police were receiving approximately 1,200 letters a day and these were full of suggestions on how to find the killer and a subject that came up quite a number of times was to use 'bloodhounds to track and capture this fiend.' On the 2nd of October in 1888, two days after the 'double event' Percy Lindley a bloodhound breeder, wrote to 'The Times' explaining the benefits of using such dogs and he was not the only bloodhound expert that suggested such actions. Sir Charles Warren contacted Edwin Brough from Scarborough who was considered the greatest expert in England on 'bloodhounds.' On the 6th of October in 1888, Edwin Brough, this down-to-earth and practical Yorkshireman, travels from Yorkshire to London with 2 of his most experienced bloodhounds ie 'Barnaby and Burgho.' On the 8th and 9th of October in 1888, Edwin Brough completes the trials with Barnaby and Burgho and these took place in Regent's Park and Hyde Park. The 'hunted subject' would be given a 15-minute start and then the bloodhounds would begin to track their subject. They tracked one individual for over a mile because they were able to follow his scent and even Sir Charles Warren acted as the 'hunted person.' By the 10th of October in 1888, the 6 trials had been successfully completed and Sir Charles Warren was happy with the outcome. Although there had been many suggestions from the public on using bloodhounds, the newspapers seemed to ridicule Sir Charles Warren on whatever he did or suggested. An example of this, was on the 19th of October in 1888, a false story was published in the newspapers stating that the 'hounds had been out on Tooting Common whilst training and had got lost in a fog while attempting to search the area.' The story was untrue but the dislike held by some of the journalists and press for the Metropolitan Commissioner was real. Maybe this is why Sir Chares Warren seemed to move so slowly in activating the bloodhounds onto the case. Sir Charles Warren had previously requested Henry Matthews the Home Secretary, to provide £50 for the purchase of such dogs and requested £100 for their future maintenance and upkeep for such dogs but Henry Matthews would only agree to the first request. Sir Charles Warren was extremely careful not to finance anything to do with the bloodhounds until he was satisfied that the scheme had a chance of succeeding and by the 10th of October in 1888, he appeared happy with the results of the trials. So the question is 'why did he not push the project forward.' By the end of October in 1888, the Police had made no assurances to Mr Edwin Brough regarding the purchasing of the dogs or for paying for insurance to cover their time in London or even to make an arrangement for hiring the dogs. Mr Edwin Brough was worried about criminals attempting to poison his bloodhounds especially as this was a new method of attempting to capture criminals. Even if the Metropolitan Police Commissioner had only authorised the hiring of the dogs, then this would have kept the whole process moving forward. Since all the trials were arranged and performed and managed by Edwin Brough, then I would say this proves that Edwin Brough was a very practical and sensible character. These were the qualities that were needed to ensure, any use of the dogs in this investigation, would have the greatest chance of success. The bloodhounds and their handler needed to be available at the moment a murder was discovered and before the scene was contaminated so as to give the bloodhounds the best chance of tracking the murderer. By the latter part of October in 1888, Edwin Brough decided to take 'Bungho' to compete and be displayed in a dog show in Brighton. 'Barnaby' remained in London with one of Edwin Brough's friends who was also an experienced dog handler. Again Edwin Brough still heard nothing from Sir Charles Warren and so took 'Barnaby' back from his London handler and he returned to his Yorkshire kennels. The final embarrassment to both Sir Charles Warren and the Metropolitan Police was when Mary Jane Kelly was murdered at 13 Miller's Court, on the 9th of November in 1888. Inspector Abberline ordered the scene not to be touched so that the bloodhounds would have a better chance to find and track Jack the Ripper's scent. So they all waiting for 2 hours before they were informed that the bloodhounds 'Barnaby and Burgho' were not even in London anymore. In an interview published in a Scarborough Magazine in approximately 1901, Edwin Brough pointed out that no murders were committed whilst the bloodhounds were in London and that Jack the Ripper may have feared the idea that 'Barnaby and Burgho' could have successfully tracked him down. Burgho's actual name was 'Burgundy' and he was so beloved and prized by Edwin Brough that when the dog died, he had Burgho's skeleton preserved. I wonder where it is today? Here is one of 4 business type letters written by Edwin Brough, this one is from the 11th of May in 1902.

Hi, '''A different tack to identifying Edward Watkins.''' The sketches of City of London Police Constable 881 Edward Watkins can vary quite a lot and it is certainly possible that the sketch artists may have intentionally drawn him in a more favourable light especially for their readers etc. I believe the sketch which was done for me, is Edward Watkins at a slightly younger age because it was partly taken from such sketches. Years of serving as a Victorian Police Constable, constantly pounding his beat, in all weathers but especially during the winter months, could harden the features of any man. It could possible age one more than normal, in appearance. Therefore, if we only examine one such sketch which was part of the official legal process, we might be able to have a clearer idea of what Edward Watkins looked like. There is a famous published newspaper sketch which was done for covering the '''Catherine Eddowes murder inquest.''' It portrays Edward Watkins as being an older and a more weather-beaten looking man and I think this sketch differs, quite a lot, from the other sketches that are available. Then, when you compare this sketch with the City of London Police photographs that are available from this period, again one man stands out from the bunch and as probably being Edward Watkins. I believe, Edward Watkins is standing directly behind Police Sergeant Phelps who is standing extremely left, third row down from the top in the group photograph. Edward Watkins is standing extreme left, second row down from the top in the group photograph. By simply covering the top of his head with your hand, in the inquest sketch and then comparing this image with the group photograph, then I believe it becomes evident that these two individuals are the same man ie Edward Watkins but that is just my opinion and other may not agree with the comparison.

Poverty in Edwardian or Victorian times must have been absolutely horrific and Police Constable 881 Edward Watkins and Police Sergeant Richard Cullen and all the others listed, would have been exposed to the horrors of poverty. '''The Old Bailey trial of Henry Augustus Berney, for the killing/murder of baby Reginal Berney, trial date 28th of May in 1907.''' On the 14th of February in 1907, Police Sergeant Richard Cullen of the Thames Division of the Metropolitan Police was informed that a very young child was floating in the water. He immediately recovered a male baby fully dressed in a white calico dress etc from the Thames. Police Sergeant Richard Cullen estimated the baby had been in the river for, at least, 14 to 15 days. The baby was in reasonably good condition but the child's nose was very much flattened into the face. Police Sergeant Richard Cullen believed the baby was approximately 7 to 14 days old and he took the body to the Greenwich mortuary and he then undressed the body and it was then handed over to the mortuary keeper. On the 14th of February Doctor John Frederick Tabb [Divisional Police Surgeon] saw the body of the baby when it had been taken out of the river and on the 15th of February in 1907, Doctor Tabb, performed a post-mortem examination on the child at the Greenwich Mortuary. Doctor Tabb also considered the body of the baby to be in good condition and apart from the flattened nose, there were no other external injuries. Doctor Tabb came to the conclusion that the baby had died from asphyxia. An inquest was held on the 16th of February and Doctor Tabb gave his professional opinion on the cause of death was by ''asphyxia.'' Margaret Blackford was a single woman and 24 years old. In 1903 she was a book-keeper at a hotel in Margate and this is where she met Henry Augustus Berney who was of French-Swiss origin and was employed as a chef. By September of 1903, they had become intimate and then lived in London as husband and wife. In London their first child, a girl, was born in July of 1904 and their second child, a boy, was born in November of 1905. Both babies were put out to different 'nurses care' at so much per week but unfortunately Henry and Margaret later became unemployed so they could no longer pay for the two babies care. The nurses in question continued to keep the babies at their own expense. It should be noted that Henry Augustus Berney had a number of jobs employed as a chef and had even crewed on a P & O steamer to Australia and sent home money to Margaret. The work was regular and they had even been able to build up some savings. It was then decided to reside in London and things later would become more difficult and with little or no work to be found and their saving all gone, life became extremely difficult for the couple. In September of 1906, the couple went to live at 10 Liverpool Street, King's Cross but Margaret was again pregnant with their third child. By the end of November they were without any means of support and Margaret went out to meet gentlemen on the street. A baby boy, 'Reginald Berney' was born on the 7th of January in 1907 and they had to borrow some money to provide clothes for the baby. They were living in great poverty and Margaret also had the problem that she could not suckle the baby, as she had been previously advised by a doctor not to attempt to suckle her other two babies. Margaret was admitted to the hospital from the 7th of January to the 17th of January in 1907 and so the baby was left with his father. Henry had made it clear to his wife that, ''he did not care what became of the child as long as it went away.'' Henry borrowed money from his brother 'Marius Berney' who was also a chef and received 3 shillings and he also borrowed from a friend 'Gustav Octave Veillard' who gave him 15 shillings. This allowed Henry to buy clothes for the baby, have a doctor visit and to examine Margaret after the birth and to pay for Margaret's hospital stay and to pay for the baby to be cared for by a nurse. He told the nurse that the baby was 3 weeks old instead of hours old and gave her 7 shillings to cover the baby's stay for a week. The nurse 'Mary Robinson of 31 Finck Street, Westminster Bridge Road, cared for little Reginald Berney from the 7th to the 14th of January in 1907. Between 7 to 8pm on the 14th of January, Henry arrived to take the baby away and Mary Robinson wrapped the baby in a black shawl over the nightdress and blanket and made sure he also took the baby's bottle with him. Henry Augustus Berney explained at his trial that he had no more money to keep the baby with the nurse and he was telling different people different stories regarding the baby. He even admitted to his brother he would like to throw the baby into the Thames and his brother told him ''if you did that, he would be the first to hand him over to the police.'' After going a little way from nurse Robinson's rooms, the baby began to cry so he put the shawl over the baby's face and turned its face towards his chest so that people would not notice him carrying the baby. When I got near the top of Kennington Road, I could not feel the baby moving and when he looked at the baby it was pale and did not move when he touched it. He knew something was wrong and bean to tremble and became dazzed. The baby was dead and he just walked up and down the road and was out of his senses for about two hours. he stated he did not remember what happened after that. When Margaret returned to 10 Liverpool Street, he told her the baby had been taken into the country and was alright. Margaret registered the birth on the 1st of February in 1907 whilst still believing the baby was safe and well and the little boy was named ''Reginald Berney.'' They moved several times over the next couple of months and Margaret asked about her baby on several accessions and Henry would say it was safe but would also mention the 'Thames River.' These discussions came to a head and he admitted he had put the baby in the river but that if she ever gave him away ''your life would not be safe'' so she never mentioned the subject again. On Easter Monday, in April of 1907, they were both arrested in connection with the baby that Police Sergeant Richard Cullen had removed from the river. On the 28th of May in 1907, the Old Bailey trial of Henry Augustus Berney [26] for the killing, murder of baby Reginald Berney started. There is approximately 6 pages [A4] to the trial records so I will just explain the judgement. Henry Augustus Berney was found guilty for the murder but the jury recommended mercy on the grounds of his extreme poverty. The trial Judge sentenced Henry Augustus Berney to ''Death.'' The sentence was later commuted to ''life imprisonment.'' Henry Augustus Berney, now aged 36, was released ''on license'' on the 20th of July in 1917. On the 1st of January in 1948, a ''Henri A Berney aged 67 who was born in Switzerland, in 1881 and was an engineer arrived in London from China. On the original Old Bailey trial record, it states that Henry Augustus Berney was actually an electrician by trade but he was mainly working as a chef during this period and I believe, on the first inspection, that this could be the same man. Richard Cullen was born in Woolwich, in London, in 1860. He joined the Metropolitan Police on the 16th of September in 1889 and retired on pension on the 12th of October in 1915. He was awarded the following medals, the 1897 Jubilee medal, the coronation medals of 1902 and 1911. Rank PC on 1897, Inspr. on 1902 and PS on 1911 and his whole service was with the ''Thames Division.' Richard Cullen prior to joining the Metropolitan Police was employed as a 'fisherman' and it seems individuals joining the Thames Division usually had some seafaring experience. Hi, Some details for Police Sergeant Richard Cullen...... The End.................................................................

Hi, Last photographs for uploading and they mainly refer to Eliza Jukes pension from the City of London Police. I know that in 1909, they gave individuals 70 years old and over, a small pension and the real old people's state pension would not have come in until the Welfare State in 1948 but I have not read these letters. There is also one Old Bailey trial record but I have not photographs the rest of the Old Bailey records.

Hi and thanks Best to share all the documents because at least they are recorded on this site.......

more documents.........................

more copies of documents.........................

Hi, I have just received the photocopies of 'City of London District Inspector John Jukes personal file' and will type in the details factually, as I have not yet had time to study the information. Although some aspects do automatically stand out ie John Jukes in February of 1884 gets into trouble for staying out all night and then in February of 1885 he marries Eliza Ingram, are these two events connected? Retired Detective Inspector John Jukes also in October of 1920, sends a telegram to the City of London Police offering his services since he is still fit and well - not sure what that is connected too. The City of London Police career of Divisional Inspector John Jukes...... John Jukes was born in Spring Hill, in Birmingham, in Warwickshire, in 1863 and his previous occupation was as a 'coachman.' John's father was Henry Jukes and was employed as a 'glass blower' and his mother was Ann Jukes. At the time of applying to join the City of London Police John Jukes was 20 years and 1 month old, was just over 5 feet and 9 inches tall, had hazel eyes, dark hair and no distinguishing marks on his body. John Jukes was single and had no children. On the 10th of September in 1882, John Jukes 'declaration to be a City of London Constable' was submitted and he was to become City of London Police Constable 697 John Jukes, warrant number 5571. On the 10th of November in 1882, John Jukes was certified fit for the service and the starting pay was 25/- per week. [25 shillings] On the 15th of November in 1883, City Police Constable 697 John Jukes was promoted to 'Constable 2nd class' and his pay increased to 28/- per week. On the 21st of February in 1884, City Police Constable 697 John Jukes only disciplinary charge was recorded. John Jukes was 'absent from quarters without leave and stayed out all night.' He was found guilty and lost his next fortnightly leave allocation. I take it that if you were residing in the section house, you were required to be available for duty, in case of an emergency, unless you were authorised to have such time off. On the 7th of February in 1885, John Jukes married Eliza Ingram, at St Paul, Clerkenwell and Eliza was born in the City of London, in 1864. On the 15th of February in 1888, City of London Police Constable 697 John Jukes was awarded £1 for dealing and apprehending with 4 expert street thieves and this was authorised by the Commissioner's authority. On the 25th of October in 1888, City of London Police Constable 697 John Jukes was promoted to 'constable 1st class' and his pay increased to 31/6- per week. [31 shillings and 6 pence] Sometime during the Jack the Ripper reign of terror, City Police Constable 697 John Jukes was placed on plain clothes duties and is documented as being a ''Detective '' during this period. On the 2nd of November in 1888, Detective John Jukes arrested Julius Willson [24] for stealing a scarf-pin from Andrew Campbell's jewellery shop at 63 Cheapside, at approximately 7.30pm. The case went to the Old Bailey on the 19th of November in 1888 and Julius Willson was found guilty and sentenced to 9 months hard labour. On the 21st of April in 1890, City Police Constable 697 John Jukes gave evidence at the Old Bailey trial of three individuals for unlawfully conspiring to steal money and they were each sentenced to 18 months hard labour. On the 23rd of September n 1890, City Police Constable 697 John Jukes was awarded 10/- for 'creditable conduct in apprehending an individual for fraud' and this was authorised by the Commissioner's authority On the 3rd of November in 1893, City Police Constable 697 John Jukes was promoted and is now a '2nd class Police Sergeant' and his pay increased to 41/5- per week. On the 19th of November in 1894, City of London Police Sergeant 47 John Jukes gave evidence at the trial of an individual who was charged with theft and was found guilty and sentenced to 18 month hard labour. On the 15th of March in 1900, City Police Sergeant John Jukes was promoted to Station Inspector and his pay was increased to 57/6- per week. On the 14th of September in 1905, City Police Inspector John Jukes was promoted to City District Inspector and his pay was increase to 75/- per week. On the 14th of September in 1906, City Police District Inspector John Jukes was 'commended for praiseworthy conduct' in connection with the arrest of 2 men for breaking and entering and this was authorised by the Commissioner's authority. On the 19th of September in 1907, City of London District Police Inspector John Jukes retires on pension from the City of London Police with an ''exemplary record.'' John Jukes pension was £117.8.0 annually. On the 21st of October in 1920, John Jukes sent a telegram to the City of London Police offering his assistance should it be necessary and that he was still in good health. Just had a sudden thought - maybe the City of London Constabulary was in a bad way because of the sackings of those Police officers that took part in the '1919 Police Strike.' On the 22nd of October in 1920, the Chief Clerk of the City of London Police at 26 Old Jewry, confirmed they had received his telegram and were glad he was still in good health and thanked him for his kind offer. On the 18th of November in 1943, Mrs Eliza Jukes wrote to the City of London Police informing them that her husband ex-District Inspector John Jukes, had died on the 17th of November in 1943 and had provided copies of their marriage certificate and a copy of the death certificate. There followed a number of communications between Mrs Eliza Jukes and the City of London Police etc regarding her pension and querying if she was receiving an 'old age pension etc.' Basically she had done everything correctly. I will take me several inputs, to download all the photographs of the documents, so this will be covered over the next few hours.

Hi Gordon, Your made a good point and you are right, PC 697 John Jukes, City of London Police, may well deserve a separate topic/thread but his connection to the Jack the Ripper story and the City of London Police allowed me to keep the 'PC 881 Edward Watkins' topic/thread alive and relevant. When I originally obtained the PC 881 Edward Watkins medal, I compared it with the other City of London examples I had within my collection and checked all the defining details regarding the medal ie size, weight, style of naming, patina etc and these all proved 100% positive. I even did a lot of research on the '1897 Clasp' and found that both the Metropolitan Police and the City of London Police, appeared to have given their ''police pensioners'' first choice for being recalled for this specific duty. But I needed to know..............was there another PC 881 Edward Watkins medal out there in a private collection or in a museum But with the excellent help of the GMIC and the last 4 years of advertising the Edward Watkins medal on the site and with over 34,800 views, I don't think there is much more I can do to evidence my point. Therefore, there are only 2 more stories that I intend to place into this topic/thread. One, is to finish the PC 697 John Jukes story. And two, is to detail the story of a murdered baby in 1907 which I consider interesting for a more unusual reason but it will take a little more time to finish researching the stories. There is one other piece of research I need to cover which was given to me by and excellent researcher within the GMIC and which I forgot to record and that relates to the previous story of 'George Compton' who was a Whitechapel or 'H' division Police Constable and who retired from this division just prior to the Jack the Ripper murders beginning. The story revolved around the theory he may have been the George Compton that was arrested in Fish Street Hill on Sunday the 11th of November in 1888 and who was a Jack the Ripper suspect for a short while. New data.................... In 1881, there were only 42 George Compton's residing in London. In 1891, there were only 39 George Compton's residing in London. This information does not prove anything but does give one a much clearer picture of the possibilities of the two men being the same man. Actually, it has just struck me that it might be possible to further reduce these figures. If you take witness statements regarding the possible sightings of JTR from around this specific period in November, note the age of the suspects and note George Compton's [ex PC] age, then you might find you have an age range between 30 to 45 or 35 to 45 or something in this range. Anyway that might be something that could be done in future research.

Hi, This is just a quick update.... The following is the initial breakdown of 'City of London Police Constable 697 John Jukes police personal file.' The details were issued by the Metropolitan London Archives and it will probably be another week before I receive copies of these documents. These 19 sides of A4 paper should contain a good deal of information about PC 697 John Jukes City of London's Police service and other details on his life. PC 697 John Jukes was a City of London Police Detective during the reign of Jack the Ripper. It will be interesting to see if there is anything special in the records.

Hi, '''A quick review of Police Constable 697 John Jukes medal group and service with the City of London Police.''' This is just a very quick review of 'City of London Police Constable 697 John Jukes medals and service' and I will complete his full career history etc sometime in 2023. Police Constable 697 John Jukes served during the same period as Police Constable 881 Edward Watkins ie from at least 1885 and until Edward Watkins retired on pension in 1896. We can evidence this as John Jukes marries Eliza Ingram at Clerkenwell, Islington, on the 7th of February in 1885 and he is recorded as being employed as a Police Constable and they were both residing in the City of London. Awarded the City of London Queen Victoria Jubilee medal for 1887. PC 697 John Jukes served with the City of London Police during the Jack the Ripper murder campaign. In the England Census of 1891, John Jukes is still a Police Constable. In 1894, we have an Old Bailey trial record that states he is now, 'City of London Police Sergeant 47 John Jukes.' Awarded the City of London Queen Victoria Jubilee Clasp for 1897. In the England Census of 1901, John Jukes is now a City of London Police Inspector. Awarded the City of London Coronation medal for 1902. Awarded the City of London Coronation medal for 1911. In the England Census of 1911, John Jukes is now a Police Pensioner. .....The City of London Police, as did the Metropolitan Police, always appear to recall their pensioned colleagues first, for the additional manpower required, to manage the Jubilee or Coronation events..... In the England Census of 1939, it is nice to know that both John and his wife Eliza Jukes are still around and residing in Ringwood and Fordingbridge, in Hampshire and he was recorded as being a retired District Inspector, City of London Police. This is a very nice group of medals because these City of London Police medals are much rarer than the Metropolitan Police medals covering the same period and the rarest group of medals cover the full period from 1887 to 1911. It is also good that he rose through the ranks to reach the rank of City of London District Inspector. But the most important reason which makes this group of medals particularly interesting, is that John Jukes is recorded as being a 'City of London Detective' on the 2nd of November in 1888. This can be evidenced through an Old Bailey trial record which confirms he is a City of London Detective on the trial date of the 19th of November in 1888. At present, I am not sure if John Jukes was permanently employed within the Detective department of the City of London Police or was he one of Sir Henry Smith's [Acting City of London Police Commissioner in 1888] men who were placed on plain clothes duties to hunt for Jack the Ripper. I believe, in August of 1888, he reassigned approximately 200 or more of his men to these special plain clothes duties and this was probably about a third of his total establishment of Police Constables. I think Sir Henry Smith was a man of great perception because he told this force, 'to do the things which under normal circumstances a constable should not do.' They were 'to hang about Public Houses, to gossip with all and sundry, to sit around smoking their pipes etc.' In addition they visited every butcher's shop in the City of London and every nook and cranny that could be used as consealment for any murders or by the murderer. I don't known of any lists or records for these City of London Policemen that were selected and placed on these plain clothes duties during this period and so finding an appropriate record which can evidence such an individual is extremely fortunate. Another very interesting point is that City of London Police Constable 697 John Jukes [later Inspector John Jukes] personal file has survived and is available through the London Metropolitan Archives and I will request a copy of this file at a latter date in 2023. Therefore John Jukes story might be enhanced by the opening of his City of London Police personal file.

Hi, I have heard and seen it stated that 'Jack the Ripper' was the first real serial killer that the world truly witnessed. He sought out prostitutes from Whitechapel and the East End of London, cutting their throats and then mutilating their bodies whenever the chance prevailed. Most experts agree that the 'canonical five' can be considered his work and these were 'Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes and Mary Jane Kelly.' Jack the Ripper's above murder spree covered a period from the 31st of August in 1888 to the 9th of November in 1888. As his hideous handywork continued through these few months, his actions became more and more depraved and ended with the massive mutilation of Mary Jane Kelly in her room, at 13 Miller's Court, in Dorset Street. The murderous work of Jack the Ripper created extensive newspaper coverage, not only in London and not only in the country but it included extensive international notoriety for this fiendish serial killer from Whitechapel. I don't think PC 881 Edward Watkins would have described 'Jack the Ripper' as a 'serial killer' as this is a more modern description, for a specific type of 'killer' but Jack the Ripper is definitely the modern-day example of such a murderer. Now we go further back in history, in fact, 50 years back............ In 1823 an 'Act' was passed which dramatically reduced the number of crimes that were punishable by death which was good news for some of the unfortunates in life but bad news for Edinburgh's anatomical schools etc. Scottish law required that corpses used for medical research should only come from those who had died in prison, suicide victims or from foundlings and orphans. This shortage of corpses led to an increase in body snatching by those that were known as 'resurrection men.' These were the men who dug up the newly buried cadavers, evading the watch towers, large slabs and iron grills put on top of the newly dug graves in an attempt to protect families loved ones from the resurrectionists. The fresher the body that could be supplied, the greater the financial reward that could be gained and this basic fact led to ''William Burke and William Hare's'' entry into the murder business. Why attempt to steal bodies from the cemeteries when all you needed to do was smother an individual and then take them directly to the anatomical services. William Burke appears to have been the more intelligent of the two men and also the more religious. William Hare by all accounts was 'illiterate and uncouth, quarrelsome and an immoral character.' The Burke and Hare partnership operated for about 10 months, in the West Port area of Edinburgh, in 1828 and they managed to murder 16 people. They were assisting in providing the cadavers that were required by the private anatomical Doctor Robert Knox who often had hundreds of spectators/students paying to view his dissection classes. I believe, the least Burke and Hare received was £7.10 shillings and they often received £10 per body. These were huge sums of money in 1828 and since William Hare and his wife managed a lodging house in Tanner's Close, in the West Port area of the town which serviced the poor of Edinburgh in need of cheap accommodation, then this is where most of the murders took place. They would apply the victim with large amounts of alcohol and then hold the individual down whilst often just using their hands to smother the victim's mouth and nose. This practice later became known as 'Burking.' Both William Burke's partner/wife and William Hare's partner/wife knew what was taking place but did not enter into directly assisting with the actual murders. Burke and Hare became greedy for the money and soon no one was safe in the area. A young prostitute called 'Mary Patterson' who was very attractive and well known in the area fell victim to their practices. It is believed some of the students who eventually observed her dissection thought they knew the cadaver and so Doctor Robert Knox had her head shaven to change her appearance before the main dissection event. Burke and Hare were very cruel and this is particularly true when they murdered an elderly grandmother and then took her blind young grandson and Burke broke the child's back across his knee. Another victim was 'Daft Jamie' a well-known local young man with a deformed foot who survived through begging in the streets and was regarded as being totally inoffensive. Again, students thought they recognised the cadaver and so Doctor Robert Knox first removed the head and deformed foot before engaging in the main dissection lecture. The final victim was killed on the 31st of October in 1828 and was Margaret Docherty, a middle-aged Irish woman but this time her body was seen by other lodgers 'Ann and James Gray' who were determined to inform the authorities. William Burke and William Hare and their partners were arrested for murder but the authorities were lacking the evidence needed for a conviction and so they offered William Hare 'immunity from prosecution if he turned king's evidence.' On Christmas Eve in 1828, the trial for murder began against William Burke and his wife. The trial resulted in a death sentence against William Burke and a 'not proven' verdict against his common law wife. On the morning of the 28th of January in 1829, in front of a crowd of 25,000 people, William Burke was hanged and later his body was dissected by Professor Monro in the anatomy theatre of the university's Old College. Burke's skeleton was given to the Anatomical Museum of the Edinburgh Medical School where it remains to this day, along with his death mask and a book bound with his skin. William Hare was later release and quickly left Scotland as the mobs would have shown him no mercy. Both the wives of Burke and Hare also disappeared from Edinburgh again fearing for their safety. The authorities also helped to get these individuals safely away from Edinburgh and they then disappeared into history. Burke and Hare and their partners were hardened drinker and extremely cold and calculating individuals. William Hare gave his statement on the murders but so did William Burke as he prepared to meet his maker. It is said Burke could not sleep at night unless he had a bottle of whiskey by his bed and that he needed a two pence candle to be illuminated all night or again he would not sleep. It is also said he was haunted by some of the murders he had committed like the little blind boy and especially how he broke the child's back over his knee. The dangers, especially to William Hare were that he was known, not only in Edinburgh for what he had been party to but in Scotland and probably this included over the border in England so he had to remain anonymous to survive and to get as far away from Edinburgh and Scotland as possible. This case is 50 years before Jack the Ripper and they murdered many more individuals and the murders extended over a longer period, than Jack the Ripper's reign of terror. So maybe this is a better case for the title of Scotland's/Britain's first serial killer case but 'Jack the Ripper' was a serial killer that shocked the world. Everybody has heard of 'Burke and Hare' but I just found a book written in 1884 about the case but I have not yet read it. Hopefully it might have some interesting points to highlight. Here we have a photo of the famous actor ''Harry Andrews'' who played Doctor Robert Knox in the 1972 version of ''Burke and Hare'' and here is an example of a Edinburgh theatre programme that was around at the end Burke and Hare's partnership in 1828.

Hi, ''George Compton and the Fish Street Hill incident.'' Here are some of the 'George Compton/Fish Street Hill incident' newspaper articles etc covering the event. [a] Echo newspaper. George Compton and the Fish Street Hill incident, dated 12/11/1888. [b] Irish Times. As above and dated 12/11/1888. [c] Morning Advertiser [London] As above and dated 12/11/1888. [d] Cardiff Times. George Compton and the Fish Street Hill incident, dated 17/11/1888. [e] '''The Lodge.'' George Compton and the Fish Street Hill incident, page 147 in the book by Stewart Evans and Paul Gainay. Dates of the Incidents. [a] Monday the 12th of November in 1888, most of the newspaper articles were written on that Monday. [b] Sunday the 11th of November in 1888, appears to be the day the incident occurred with George Compton in Fish Street Hill. [c] Saturday the 10th of November in 1888, this appears to be the day and date that George Compton was arrested in Shadwell for acting suspiciously. [d] Saturday the 3rd of November in 1888, is the possible date for the incident, if they were referring to the week before. Here are some basic details on Police Constable George Compton and where he was residing over the years [a] 17/12/1874. George Compton marries Faith Reynolds at St Peter, Mile End Old Town, Tower Hamlets. [George Compton born Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, 15/12/1842. Faith Reynold recorded in both Bradford/Thornton, Yorkshire in 1846.] [b] 1881 to 1885, residing at 115 Old Church Road, Mile End Old Town, Tower Hamlets. Wife - Faith Compton nee Reynolds is employed as an 'upholsteress' and they have no children. [c] 5/7/1888. George Compton retires on pension from the Metropolitan Police and is presently residing at 115 Finnis Street and that is where he will continue to stay. [George Compton states he is married and his wife is his next of kin.] [d] 1891 census, George Compton is residing at 3 Septre Street, in Whitechapel and his wife is now recorded as Jane Compton nee Howell. [Probably they are common law and her 3 children are also residing in the family home Elizabeth Howell 14, James A Howell 12 and William G Howell 9.] [e] 1891 census, George Compton's original wife can be found residing elsewhere and obviously has started a new life. [f] 1898 between July and September, George Compton dies and the death is registered in the District of Mile End Old Town.

Hi, This is just to ensure everybody understands..........I am not saying these two George Comptons are the same person but rather I am putting the case that they could be the same individual. Hopefully one day further details will emerge that will prove the case one way or another. I struggled typing the last article so there are a few errors within the previous input.

''Who is this George Compton.'' When I originally bought this medal from the previous owner, it came with a 'major dealer's compliment slip' from where he had purchased the medal and a newspaper article relating to a ''Jack the Ripper suspect'' that had the same name as inscribed on the medal but no Metropolitan Police history could be found. The medal was the Queen Victoria Metropolitan Police Jubilee medal for 1887 and was awarded to ''PC G Compton H divn.'' The newspaper article stated that a ''George Compton'' had been arrested for acting suspiciously and was considered a suspect for the Jack the Ripper murders and that this was his second arrest for acting suspiciously, in November of 1888. The potential problem with such medals, is that somebody who was in Whitechapel or 'H' division in July of 1887, may not have been there in late 1888 when ''Jack the Ripper'' was carrying out his dreadful deeds. Therefore it is important to find some way to verify that the individual appears to be or was on the Whitechapel establishment during this period and there are some examples where you cannot complete such a task realistically and this would affect the medals value. I was lucky, as I found his Police pension records and this allowed me to do further research on his life. George Compton was born in Cheltenham, in Gloucestershire, on the 15th of December in 1842. Police Constable George Compton joined the Metropolitan Polce on the 5th of December in 1870 and was assigned to Bow or 'K' division. Police Constable George Compton transferred to Whitechapel of 'H' division on the 30th of June in 1880. Police Constable George Compton retired on pension on the 30th of June in 1888 and his pension records are dated from the 5th of July in 1888.Therefore he completed 18 years service and the last 8 years were with the Whitechapel or 'H' division. It seems interesting to me, that he was pensioned off with only a total of 18 years service and he was only 45 years of age and with no listed injuries etc. Therefore he would have been serving in Whitechapel when Emma Smith was attacked on the 2nd of April in 1888 and who died the next day but most people would agree she was probably not a ''Ripper'' victim. Police Constable George Compton would certainly have known all the main Whitechapel police who were investigating and hunting for Jack the Ripper and would have known the local people and the area of Whitechapel very well. George Compton retires from the Metropolitan Police and was residing at 115 Finnis Street, in Bethnal Green. Approximately 4 weeks later Martha Tabram is murdered on the 7th of August in 1888 and the terror begins. In July of 1888, George Compton's physical description is as follows, 45 years old, has dark hair, hazel eyes and a florid [reddish] complexion and is five feet seven and three-quarter inches tall. George Compton's marriage also appears to collapse sometime between the last quarter of 1888 and the first quarter of 1891 and we can evidence this in the England Census records for 1891. In 1888, during the reign of Jack the Ripper, London was awash with Police activity and much of the general public was on high alert to try and capture this fiend. '''The Incident.''' Basically, a number of men in a Beer House in Fish Street Hill, were talking about the murders and a Mr Brown from 9 Dorset Street, noticed what looked like dried blood stains, on the stranger's coat who was in their company. The stranger said it was paint and because the coat was loose fitting, it was noticed there was dried blood stains on the man's shirt. The stranger then admitted it was blood and gave some contradictory statements respecting his place of residence and where he worked. The stranger then left the Beer House immediately and Mr Brown followed him. On passing Bishopsgate Police Station the stranger was identified by Mr Brown and handed over to the Police. The prisoner's name was George Compton and he protested loudly about being arrested in a public street, fearing he could have been lynched. A few days before a Police Constable had arrested George Compton in Shadwell dur to his suspicious behavior and so the Police checked his story and he was later released. This incident was circulated in a number of newspapers, including newspapers outside of the London area, in November of 1888. The story has since been repeated in various publication, books and forums etc. There has been discussions that Police Constable George Compton is the same George Compton that is referred to in the newspaper article. I am not a ''Ripperologist'' so I do not know of the background information which relates to that theory. Therefore it is my intention to consider what might be the reasons for ex-police constable George Compton's strange behavior and getting involved in the Jack the Ripper story, in such an awkward way. [a] George Compton may have desired ''fame and glory'' because for anybody that could assist in the capture of ''Jack the Ripper'' there would have been instant and tangible fame and glory. He would become a Victorian hero and would have been considerably rewarded. George Compton was an ex-police constable but helping to capture the Ripper, then he would be recognized as one of the London's greatest Policemen. [b] George Compton had worked the streets of Whitechapel for his last 8 years of service with the Metropolitan Police and so knew the people and area very well. He knew which Beer and Public Houses to frequent for asking his questions and just listening to the tittle tattle. He would have observed Whitechapel detectives carrying out their work and studied their procedures and tactics. It did not have to be a full time undertaking, it might just be a few hours here and there but properly organized. He could keep away from people and places where he would be recognized or go to known individuals and places where he was more likely to be given information and help. It is a fact that when somebody steps out of their uniform, then they become more difficult to recognize and it should be remembered George Compton had already been retired from the Metropolitan Police for 4 months. George Compton probably had ''tine on his hands'' to try a little detective work and being a pensioner it would have been easy for him to arrange such activities around his average day. On should remember that Whitechapel and London would have been swarming with individuals and groups of men, all attempting to succeed in the same way. [c] On retiring from the Metropolitan Police George Compton remained in London and was residing at 115 Finnis Street, in Bethnal Green and would have had his own network of friends, colleagues and acquaintances in the area to assist him. The problem was new information was most likely to come from listening and talking about the murders with strangers etc but this also had the possibility of making the listener/talker a 'suspicious character' as well. [d] The George Compton who was arrested outside Bishopsgate Police Station knew immediately the dangers if such an action. There had been incidents where individuals were almost lynched when arrested by the Police in public areas. George Compton knew of this danger and complained bitterly to the Duty Inspector about the danger he had been put in. He also openly explained to the Inspector about being arrested a few days before in Shadwell. Many people would have kept quiet about the previous arrest so why did this George Compton say anything. I believe, it was because he knew that the Duty Inspector would automatically check with the other Police Station involved in the previous incident and who had cleared his name just a few days before and this procedure would result in George Compton gaining an earlier release. If this is the ex-policeman George Compton, he would have definitely explained about what he had been doing and why and that he was a retired Metropolitan Police Constable and again this would have resulted in his early release but I do not believe, under any circumstances, the City of London Police would have released this information. There were great dangers during this period of the ''mobs'' blaming groups of people for the murders ie Jews, foreigners, slaughtermen and maybe they would begin to think it was a Policeman who was doing the murders and so that is why he always escaped. [d] Interesting questions that will probably never be answered........ Was Police Constable 881 Edward Watkins on duty at Bishopsgate Police Station when George Compton was arrested? Was the arrested George Compton, the same ex-policeman George Compton and was he searching for information on Jack the Ripper. I am sure George Compton [ex-PC] was just an ordinary man who would not have stood out in a crowd but I now stand corrected because my wife said ''if you have a red faced complexion, you will probably stand out in a group.'' The End.

Hi, Another Whitechapel Detective serving during the 'Houndsditch Murders' and especially the 'Sidney Street Siege' period. ''Police Constable Frederick Gooding, later to become Detective Inspector Frederick Gooding.'' Frederick Gooding was born in Aldershot, in Hampshire, on the 13th of September in 1872. On the 30th of March n 1896, Frederick Gooding joins the Metropolitan Police and was assigned to Whitechapel or 'H' division. Frederick Gooding was given the warrant number of 81089. Police Constable Frederick Gooding was awarded the Queen Victoria Metropolitan Police Jubilee medal for 1897 whilst serving in Whitechapel or 'H' division and was also awarded the Coronation medal for 1902 whilst again still serving with Whitechapel or 'H' division. After over 6 years of service in uniform and on various occasions on plain clothes duties, Frederick Gooding was appointed to ''clerk to the Whitechapel C.I.D.'' and was later appointed by ''Detective Inspector Wensley'' to ''Detective patrols.'' On the 10th of May in 1906, Detective Frederick Gooding was promoted to Detective Sergeant [3rd Class] within Whitechapel or 'H' division's C.I.D. In December of 1910, during the ''Houndsditch Murders'' incident and on the 3rd of January in 1911 during the ''Sidney Street Siege'' incident - Detective Sergeant Frederick Gooding was serving with the Whitechapel or 'H' division's C.I.D. and would therefore have been directly involved in the investigation of these incidents. On the 3rd of March in 1911, Detective Sergeant Frederick Gooding was promoted to Detective Sergeant [2nd Class] within the Whitechapel or 'H' division's C.I.D. Detective Sergeant Frederick Gooding was awarded the Coronation medal for 1911 whilst serving in Whitechapel or 'H' division. On the 19th of February in 1915, Detective Sergeant Frederick Gooding was promoted to Detective Sergeant [1st Class] and transferred to Whitehall or 'A' division. On the 30th of March in 1918, Detective Sergeant Frederick Gooding was transferred to Holborn or 'E' division. On the 20th of October in 1919, Detective Sergeant Frederick Gooding was promoted to Inspector [2nd Class] in Holborn or 'E' division. On the 5th of April in 1921, Detective Inspector Frederick Gooding retires on pension from the Metropolitan Police and Holborn division. On retiring from the Metropolitan Police, after serving 25 years, Detective Inspector Frederick Gooding had an admiral record for maintaining ''Law and Order.'' The first 19 years was serving in Whitechapel including 13 years in their C.I.D. and then serving 3 years in Whitehall and Holborn and retiring as a Detective Inspector. During his career he was commended by judges, magistrates, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Commissioners of Police on more than 100 occasions. On retiring Detective Inspector Frederick Gooding was certified as having an ''Exemplary Conduct.'' Detective Inspector Frederick Gooding retired knowing that he had recorded approximately 1,100 arrests which was an outstanding achievement. There are many ''Old Bailey'' trial records and ''British Newspaper Archive'' accounts of his cases. Here is a sample of the cases Frederick Gooding was involved in :- [a] ''The murder of Mr and Mrs Farrow by the Stratton brothers in 1905.'' The ''Stratton Brothers'' Alfred and Albert were the first murderers to be convicted for murder based on fingerprint evidence. They murdered and robbed Thomas Farrow [71] and his wife Ann [65] in the couples flat, above their shop. They were found guilty and executed on the 23rd of May in 1905 for the vicious murders. [b] ''The murder of Leon Beron in 1911.'' On the 1st of January in 1911, the body of Leon Beron was found bludgeoned and stabbed to death, after being robbed. Leon Beron was a slumlord, owning several dilapidated houses that he rented out. Leon was not well liked but the investigation soon centered on Steinie Morrison. The alibi he gave police was that he had attended the theatre on the night of the murder, along with a teenaged girl and her sister. This alibi was soon disproven and he was charged with the murder. Steinie Morrison was found guilty and sentenced to death but Winston Churchill commuted the sentence to ''life in prison.'' Steinie Morrison always demanded the death sentence should be reinstated and even went on hunger strike several times to highlight his demand. He died in prison on the 24th of January in 1921 and his body had been weakened by the multiple hunger strikes he had endured. [c] ''The Houndsditch Murders and the Sidney Street Siege.'' The Houndsditch Murders and the Sidney Street Siege in December of 1910 and January of 1911, had the whole of London and the country in an uproar due to the murder of the City of London Policemen. Detective Inspector Frederick Porter Wensley and Detective Sergeant Benjamin Leeson etc were both heavily involved in these investigations. Detective Sergeant Frederick Gooding knew both men very well and this can be evidenced by the many Old Bailey trial records which record these individuals working together on cases. Detective Sergeant Frederick Gooding actually worked the street of Whitechapel for approximately 19 years and of which 13 years were spent serving in the Whitechapel C.I.D. It should also be noted that Detective Sergeant Frederick Gooding was promoted to ''Detective Sergeant 2nd Class'' only a couple of months after the Sidney Street Siege incident had ended. During these incidents no leave was allowed and Detective Sergeant Frederick Gooding would have been armed and basically Christmas was cancelled for all of them, as they hunted the killers of their fellow officers from the City of London Police. This is one detective who would have been at the heart of the investigation especially as he was an experienced Detective Sergeant. Frederick's colleague Detective Sergeant Leeson was one of the police officer that was wounded at Sidney Street, having been shot in the chest but survived.