PC 881 Edward Watkins City of London Police

[bigjarofwasps]

Cracking group Allan, look forward to reading his story 👍!

Wonder what treasures his person file will reveal!!

 

 

[Alan Baird]

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. 

[bigjarofwasps]

Very much looking forward to reading them 👍👍.
 

Perhaps he deserves a thread of his very own? 

 

[Alan Baird]

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.    

[Alan Baird]

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.

 

 

 

 

  

[Alan Baird]

 

 

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

[Alan Baird]

 

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

[bigjarofwasps]

Fascinating stuff Alan, thanks for sharing 👍. 

[Alan Baird]

Hi and thanks

 

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

 

[Alan Baird]

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. 

[Alan Baird]

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.................................................................

[Alan Baird]

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by Alan Baird

[Alan Baird]

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.    

[Alan Baird]

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.]

[Alan Baird]

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.

 

 

 

 

[Alan Baird]

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.]

[Alan Baird]

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.

[Alan Baird]

 

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.  

 

 

[Alan Baird]

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].

 

  

[Alan Baird]

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.' 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alan Baird]

''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.]

 

 

  

  

 

[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...................

[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.