Alan Baird

Hi, This is my final post with GMIC, as it is now time for me to retire from collecting. Anyway, one last post to finish off the ''Edward Watkins'' story. A few weeks ago I met uip with a family friend who also happens to be an artist and being a professional artist he is an expert on portriats and facial charactistics etc. I explained to him that there were only a few sketches available of Edward Watkins and that I am now of the opinion, some of them give him a younger or a more favourable appearance, than he probably had in 1888. Therefore it might be more beneficial to examine this problem from a different perspective. First of all, we need a sketch from an official and reliable source. Secondly, it should illustrate a more basic and rugged appearance which would have occurred naturally from pounding his beat for 17 years and especially with Edward Watkins now being 44 years old, in 1888. Thirdly, Edward Watkins has a very distinctive ''flat shapped face'' which is not so common ie from his forehead to his chin everything is flat and within that one descending angle or line. Therefore, I showed my friend the sketch from the ''Catherine Eddowes Inquest'' which portrays a more weather-beaten Edward Watkins and this could then be compared with the photographs of the City of London Policemen on the roof of the Bishopsgate Police Station from around the same period. Straight away he identified Edward Watkins as standing behind Police Sergeant Phelps who was standing on the extreme left and third down from the top, in the photograph. Therefore Edward Watkins was standing on the extreme left, second row down from the top, in the photograph. Obviously, 136 years later, this experiment does not prove this is Edward Watkins but it does provide another expert opinion that builds up the evidence/case that it could be or is ''Edward Watkins.'' regards and goodbye.

I meant to say that the ''National Archives archivist and staff were brilliant.'' Obviously, they are extremely busy but they made sure all the 'e' mails were answered and they were extremely professional and helpful.

Part 2, the general research relating to PC William Nicholas 'G' division......Queen Victoria Metropolitan Police Jubilee medals for 1887. These early Queen Victoria Metropolitan Police Jubilee medals for 1887 are not covered by the publication 'The Metropolitan Police, The men and their medals by J. H. F. Kemp.' Therefore there is no quick way to research them through this superb publication. To trace 'PC W Nicholas' you have to go to the National Archives but the problem is.........it may be be very difficult to actually trace him with this limited information. I thought the surname 'Nicholas' might have many entries and make the research impossible but to my amazement the vast majority of Nicholas entries referred to it being a 'christian name and not a surname.' The small number of 'Nicholas surnames' did not have the correct christian name to fit the inscription on the medal. There was only one that fitted the bill and covering the period from 1860 to 1911 and that was a 'William Nicholas.' The 2 National Archieves entries on William Nicholas then gave me his joining and leaving dates and his divisions etc and I could then work from this. It was now possibe to go to 'Ancestry' and view his Metropolitan Police pension details and it was there I found out that he had transferred to Whitechapel or 'H' division on the 30th of June in 188_. Unfortunately the 'last year digit' was unreadable due to the way the page was positioned in the document book and so the figure could not be seen in the photograph. There are only 3 yearly figures that could be correct :- [a] 1887 - in early June of 1887, PC William Nicholas was serving in Finsbury or 'G' division and therefore was awarded the Queen Victoria Metropolitan Police Jubilee medal for 1887 whilst serving within that division. Therefore PC William Nicholas could have transferred to Whitechapel or 'H' division on the 30th of June in 1887. This would mean he served in Whitechapel during the famous 'Jack the Ripper murders.' [b] 1888 - On the 30th of June in 1888, PC William Nicholas could have transferred to Whitechapel or 'H' division. This would mean he served in Whitechapel during the famous 'Jack the Ripper murders.' [c] 1889 - On the 30th of June in 1889, PC William Nicholas could have transferred to Whitechapel or 'H' division. This would mean he served in Whitechapel, approximately 6 months after the famous 'Jack the Ripper reign of terror' was completed. The National Archives also assisted in attempting to identify the missing 'year digit' but it turned out that the missing digit was damaged because the document stitching passed through the centre of the figure and their best assessment was..... ''it was either a '0' or a '6' or a '8.' It is impossible for it to be either the year of '1880 or 1886' because we know he was serving in either Bow or Finsbury divisions at these times. We also have local newspaper articles which again evidence PC William Nicholas location within the Metropolitan Police in 1880 and 1893 PC William Nicholas was awarded the Queen Victorian Metropolitan Police Jubilee medal in 1887 and this event took place at the start of June. Although the original transfer to Finsbury or 'G' division is not recorded in his pension records, this is not a problem. The individual's first and last divisions and their dates had to be listed on the pension records, as well any promotions and associated transfers due to those promotions but otherwise the 'individual official' completing the record did not always complete this 'divisional history in full.' In the majority of cases they may have completed the details in full but I have also seen the cases were this was not done. The only year date the transfer can relate to is ''1887 or 1888 or 1889.'' The curve shape that the National Archives observed on the damaged figure in the document cancels out the year digit being either '7' or '9.' Therefore, I believe, all the evidence points to his transfer being made on the '30th of June in 1888.' If you examine the final '8' in the year date and then amagine stitches destroying the centre of the figure, you get a curve coming down from the top and a curve coming up from the bottom which is what the National Archives archivist confirmed was the shape observed. Police Constable 104H William Nicholas remained with Whitechapel or 'H' division until her retired on the 2nd of March in 1895. I believe, William Nicholas was one of the Police Constables that hunted Jack the Ripper in 1888 and is one of the 'still unrecorded Police Constables' from the original Whitechapel or 'H' division establishment list of 1888. I remember reading somewhere that over 200 Police Officers have been identified who served in Whitechapel during this period in history. Hopefully, I have explained the research adequately, as it has not been the easiest case to explain.

Police Constable William Nicholas. [Served in the Metropolitan Police from 1875-1895]. Awarded the Queen Victoria Metropolitan Police Jubilee medal for 1887 and this was his only entitlement. Willian Nicholas was born in Newick, in Sussex, on the 6th of March in 1857 and his parents were Henry and Mary Nicholas. On the 20th of December in 1875, William Nicholas joins the Metropolitan Police and is assigned to Bow or 'K' division and was given the warrant number of 59767. On the 17th of March in 1876, William Nicholas [20] and Elizabeth Perring [24] both residing at 125 Charles Street, in London, are married in the Parish Church of Stepney. On the 26th of June in 1880, the Tower Hamlets Independent and East End Local Advertiser, reported on a case at the Old Bailey where PC William Nicholas 381K, disarms a knifeman. Peter Hill [35] a labourer was charged with unlawfully wounding Emily Collins by cutting her on the neck and arm with a knife and assulting PC William Nicholas. Emily Collins stated she and the defendant were residing at 5 John Street, in Stepney and that on the Sunday night Peter Hill had told her to go to bed. Then an arguement and struggle started on the bed and she sustained two knife injuries. The assault was also independently witnessed. Police Constable William Nicholas 381K was in Commercial Road and on plain clothes duties when he was called to investigate the incident. Peter Hill was very violent and assaulted the constables before being arrested and taken to the local Police Station. The magistrate Mr Lushington committed the prisoner for trial. In 1887, Police Constable William Nicholas is awarded the Queen Victoria Metropolitan Police Jubilee medal for 1887 whilst serving with Finsbury or 'G' division. On the 30th of June in either 1887 or 1888 or 1889, Police Constable William Nicholas was transferred to Whitechapel or 'H' division and he remains in this division until he retires on pension in 1895. The second part of this submission will go into greater detail on the research carried out on this specific point. In the England Census of 1891, William Nicholas [34] who is recorded as being employed as a Police Constable and Elizabeth Nicholas [40] are residing at 6 Fair Street, Mile End Old Town, Western, in London. The family now consist of Maud Elizabeth [12] born in Middlesex in 1879, Frances Mary [10] born in Middlesex in 1881, William Henry Newman Nicholas [6] born in Middlesex in 1885 and Rose Harriet Nicholas 9 months old and born in Middlesex in 1890. On the 10th of September in 1893, in 'The People Newspaper' there is a story about a 'brutal husband punished at the Thames Police Court.' Peter Titzel [20] was charged that whilst drunk he violently assaulted his wife and his 6 year old daughter. Police Constable William Nicholas 104H was called to the house and arrested the prisoner. Police Constable William Nicholas 104H stated there had been several previous summons against the prisoner for committing the same offence against his wife and so he was sentenced to one months imprisonment with hard labour and ordered to pay for support for his wife and child. On the 2nd of March in 1895, Police Constable William Nicholas retires on pension from the Metropolitan Police and Whitechapel or 'H' division. William Nicholas is recorded as still being married to Elizabeth Nicholas and that they are residing at 6 Fair Street, in Stepney. William Nicholas retired on an annual pension of £29.19s.1d. and so he received a weekly pension of £1.12s. and had served for a total of 19 years and 70 days. William Nicholas was 37 years old and his physical description stated he had dark brown hair, grey eyes, fair complexion and was 6 feet tall. William Nicholas also had a slight scar on his right ear. Obviously it would appear that William Nicholas was probably in poor health for one reason or another and that is why he was released early on pension On the 17th of April in 1896, William Nicholas dies and his probate is issued on the 13th of November in 1896 and he is recorded as William Nicholas of Woodbine Lodge, in Newick, in Sussex and strangely he leaves all his £60 effects to Henry Chown a retired provision merchant and not to his wife/children. On the 1st of February in 1899, Elizabeth Nicholas dies at Woodbine, in Newick, in Sussex and the probate is issued on the 23rd of February in 1900. Elizabeth leaves her estate amounting to £110.12s.5d. to her daughter Maud Elizabeth Blunden nee Nicholas. That was a quick summary of the life of William Nicholas. I will shortly complete a second part to his story but I need to take a short break.

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.