|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Angel
Police Constable
Username: Angel
Post Number: 8
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 5:05 am: |       |
Hi all,
On the eve of the anniversary of Annie Chapman's death I require some assistance, if you please.
To begin…
Elizabeth Long’s residence is listed as follows
Sudgen; Complete History = 32 Church St
Eddleston; JtR An Encyclopaedia = 32 Church St
Evans, Skinner; Sourcebook - Swanson's report 19/10/1888 to Home Office = 32 Church St
Ibid - Inquest extract The Times 20/9/1888 = 198 Church-row
Ibid - Inquest extract The Times 27/9/1888 = Church St
The Daily Telegraph 20/9/1888 = Church-row
Begg; JtR The Definitive History = 32 Church St
I can accept that the papers got it wrong, for the others seem to agree on 32 Church St. Even The Times printed Church St. at a later date when reporting on the inquest.
Can I get definite clarification on her residence.
My BIGGEST problem, however is…
What was she doing in Hanbury St?
Church St (if this is really her address) is two streets south of Hanbury St. To get to Spitalfields Markets she only had to walk west along Church St. But she didn’t! Did she take a morning constitutional around several blocks? Or perhaps she was seeing a lover? I don't know.
It makes no sense, whatsoever, for her to go to Spitalfields Markets via Hanbury St.
And even if she did travel the long route, 1/2 hour to get from Church St. to Hanbury St?
She left home at about 5:00am and was nearing Hanbury St. from Brick Lane at 5:30. She knew the time because the brewer's clock in Brick Lane struck the 1/2 hour.
I can find no mention of this question ever being raised, either at the inquest, on these boards or in the titles I have read. There are still more titles on my list, but I would have though that the abovementioned would have covered it.
I trust you can see my problem. Why was she in Hanbury St.?
Come to think of it. Was she even in Hanbury St.?
There is no such thing as right or wrong - only places to stand. |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1291
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 9:01 am: | |
Maybe she had spent the night elsewhere. Although I can't think why. I can't remember much about her to be honest. What was her profession?
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1037
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 12:55 pm: | |
Hi Angel,
In my calculations, Mrs long walking at a moderate pace would have reached Hanbury street just after 515am , that is if she left home at 5am as stated. she could have covered twice that distance in half a hour.
Richard. |
Angel
Police Constable
Username: Angel
Post Number: 9
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 1:15 am: | |
Hi Sarah & Richard,
If the events depicted here are correct http://casebook.org/victims/chapman.long.html
and they do seem to fit the generally accepted ideas, then Elizabeth Long travelled south down Brick Lane and turned right into Hanbury St. Even if she was travelling north up Brick Lane from Church St. it still works - possibly putting her on the south side of Hanbury St. and not the north, but close enough. She still ends up in Hanbury St.
Assuming that Mrs. Long knew where she lived, then I'm still left wondering, why she would go so far out of her way to get to Spitalfields Markets when she lived within 100 yards or so of them?
As Sarah mentioned she may have spent the night elsewhere, but there is no mention of this that I can find in any reports. And it would be an odd question for the police not to ask if there was any hint of truth to it.
Is there another Church St. that I'm missing? Hanbury St is an amalgamation of Browns Lane, Montague St., Preston St. and Church St(Mile End area, not Whitechapel) and this happened on the 31/3/1876 - according to the information here http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-streetsof.html .
There is a lot said about this witness and what she saw. Coroner Baxter considers her statement important enough to question the information supplied by Dr Phillips, Albert Cadosch [Cadoche]and others.
But if she wasn't there and never saw what she reported, everything changes.
After all, even if she made an erroneous statement to the police she did identify Annie Chapman's body, is a counter point that can be made. This wouldn't hold much credibility though. At this point she wouldn't be in a strong position not to label the body in the morgue as the person she saw outside 29 Hanbury St. Besides, was she shown several bodies (much like a police line-up) and picked Annie out - I doubt it. Usually when a person is taken to identify a body they are shown the body and asked is this the person you saw. Common sense would tell her to say 'yes' if she wanted to maintain her witness status.
Maybe she wanted her five minutes of fame or thought that by giving a general description of a male and placing him at the murder scene she was furthering the police investigation and being a good citizen. She wouldn't be the first person in the world to do so. And it seems that several times during the ripper investigations witnesses tended to offer up information that they thought the police wanted to hear; Matthew Packer for one, springs to mind.
Of cause I could be wrong, which is why I'm seeking the voices of those much more experienced and familiar with the case.
And Sarah, I have found nothing regarding her line of work. Oddly enough, her description further adds fuel to the anti-foreigner feeling in the area at the time. It also points, however so slightly, to John Pizer's description. And knowing his love of roughing up prostitutes, I wonder if this may be any indication of what Elizabeth Long did for a living? It would go some way to giving her a motive if she supplied false evidence to the police.
There is no such thing as right or wrong - only places to stand. |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 215
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 4:40 pm: | |
I'm glad this thread started, I was about to write up a commentary on Cadoche & Long, something is amiss here.
Two witnesses resident in Hanbury St recall hearing the Spitalfields church strike the quarter hour while they were 'inside' the house, yet Long's testimony would have us believe that she heard the Brewers clock while stood outside on the sidewalk (pavement).
I don't think thats credible, she had to have heard the Spitalfields church bell, unless she was not actually outside 29 Hanbury St. when it rang, and this is exactly what is reported by the Daily Telegraph, that she heard the Brewers clock strike the half hour *before* she turned into Hanbury St.
This is more believable, therefore Mrs Long only reached No. 29 Hanbury St. *after* 5:30 am, Cadoche was already down the street on his way past the Spitafilelds church and the murder had already been committed by the time Mrs Long saw her 'man & woman' standing on the sidewalk.
This is why I personally do not accept the man in the deerstalker as Jack the Ripper. I think Mrs Long just mistakenly identified some other couple, the woman was not Annie Chapman, the timing will not allow it.
Regards, Jon.
Sorry for not responding to anyone in the past few days, I had a modem melt-down over the weekend.  |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1039
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 3:15 am: | |
Hi Jon,
The main point is if.. Mrs Long left home as she says at 5am, and walked at a moderate pace to Hanbury Street, there is no way it would have taken her 30min plus, from the actual distance known it would have taken her no more than 13minutes.
I conducted this experiment myself , and i can verify what was experimented in the past as accurate.
If Mrs Long passed the couple at 515am, there would have been ample time for that client, and possibly someone watching, to have committed the murder by the time cadouche heard the famous'No' and thud against the fence.
I personally believe the deerstalker man was not her killer, but simply a punter, who quickly conducted business with Chapman, and when he left the entrance, another person entered the passage in to the yard and despatched the worn out victim whilst she was recovering from her recent encounter.
The height of the fence is important, for Cadouche not to have seen any figures in the yard the fence must have been of a reasonable height , or both parties were at ground level when the attack was made.
Richard. |
Angel
Sergeant
Username: Angel
Post Number: 11
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 3:19 am: | |
Now were getting somewhere.
I'm still at a loss to why she was even in Hanbury Street, but time may tell one way or the other.
I have my doubts about using Cadoche's information to form a rough time of death, also. Not what he heard or even when he heard it. But none of it nesseccarily relates to the Ripper or Annie's time of death.
There are many other explanations for what he heard. But I should probably take them to the Cadoche thread. Unless someone wants to start a thread revolving around these two witnesses and their statements.
The major players involved in establishing Annie's time of death and the events preceding it are Richardson, Cadoche, Long and Davis. Oh and lets not forget Dr Phillips and Insp. Chandler.
Would make a hell of a thread.
I suppose it's part of the limitations of forums, with threads on similar or related individuals and events separated. It sometimes makes examining the evidence and thought process of posters as a whole very difficult. It isolates specific events that only make sense when placed in context with other event surrounding them.
There is no such thing as right or wrong - only places to stand. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2976
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 3:59 am: | |
I don't know how to say this, but - um - it has been known for women to stop and talk to someone they know. Quite often! 
Robert
"There are no seats, only places to stand" - London Underground |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 216
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 6:51 am: | |
Hi Robert.
You're not the only one to point out that it takes about half the time for her to get from home to 29 Hanbury St., but like eveyone else you assume she went directly there and had no other business on route.
I don't recall her being asked if she stopped off at any point along the way, the timing of her walk was never in question. She could have called at a friends house, at a business, stopped to wake some friends (knock'em up), as police often did.
Assuming she was wrong about the time because we cannot fill in her 30 minute journey is not a good argument. She was only required to state where she lived not how long it took her to get to Hanbury St.
Why not argue that she set off at 5:15am, and not 5:00am?. If you think she was wrong about the time, how do you know whether it was at the start or at the end?.
When a clock strikes the half hour (5:30), it has a different chime than it does for the quarter hour (5:15 / 5:45), residents would know the difference, they rely on it, and so did most policemen.
No, the critical point for me is that both statements by Cadoche and Long are anchored by references to clocks.
The events concerning Cadoche end at his passing Spitalfields clock at "about 2 mins past 5:30". Everything that he did that morning must be compressed between 5:15am and 5:32am.
Whereas the event that includes Mrs Long is timed at 5:30, *before* she turns into Hanbury St.
Annie Chapman was already dead at that point.
I think the path of least resistance, the simple conclusion, is that she confirms the well known opinion that 'eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable'.
Mrs Long just thought the woman standing in Hanbury St. looked (dressed?) like the woman in the morgue. I think she was mistaken, thats all.
Regards, Jon |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1300
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 7:03 am: | |
All,
I think Mrs Long probably got the time correct and it was indeed 5.30 am when she was in Hanbury Street because, as Jon says:-
"When a clock strikes the half hour (5:30), it has a different chime than it does for the quarter hour (5:15 / 5:45), residents would know the difference, they rely on it, and so did most policemen.
I still don't know why Mrs Long was in Hanbury Street, but it could have been for many reasons, she could have spent the night elsewhere or she had business that way before going to the market or anything really.
Jon,
Why are you so certain that Annie was dead at 5.30 am?
Also, the clocks do confuse me, however the papers are known to have got a lot of information mixed up and this may be one of those errors.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2977
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 7:31 am: | |
Hi Jon
Yes, as I say, I have no problem with her taking a long time to get there. But as for squaring her testimony with Cadosch's, that's a difficult proposition. Do we know how good the clocks were in those days? If they were anything like the clocks around here, they could all have been telling different times.
If we dismiss the man and woman seen by Long, then of course we have the question, why didn't they come forward? I suppose the obvious answer is that they were a prostitute and her client, but there could be other reasons.
Robert |
Angel
Sergeant
Username: Angel
Post Number: 12
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 7:54 am: | |
Hi all,
As to Mrs Long's whereabouts the night before, I quote her statement "...I was passing down Hanbury-street, from home, on my way to Spitalfields Market." She makes no mention of from visiting a friend and her statement seems to be clear that she left home.
The first link I included in a previous mail shows her coming south down Brick Lane, nowhere near her home in Church St., before turning into Hanbury St. It would have neither added to or subtracted from her statement or credibility to say she was coming from elsewhere. In fact stating she had stopped and spoken to someone or run an errand would have allowed the police to verify her statement and the times more accurately - unless she was never there. Being more specific and saying I saw so and so may have destroyed her story if the police had checked. She gave nothing other than a clock chime as her witness (and this still does not verify her exact location - even if clocks do have faces). If she was ever in Hanbury St., of the only people who could verify it, one was dead and the other...
Perhaps the information contained in the link and written in books is incorrect or she lived elsewhere. This is what I was trying to establish in my initial post and my own mind.
There is an error somewhere, but exactly where...
There is no such thing as right or wrong - only places to stand. |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1301
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 10:30 am: | |
Angel,
Maybe she just fancied a long walk. I know, not a solid argument but I can't think why she would take the long way around for no reason, unless she couldn't go her normal way for some reason we don't know about.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 218
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 2:51 pm: | |
Hi Sarah, you ask..
"Why are you so certain that Annie was dead at 5.30 am?"
Sorry, I was taking Cadoche's statement at face value, if he is correct Annie was attacked around 5:25am or thereabouts. I should have qualified that point.
Hi Robert.
Yes I agree about the clocks, they are likely to have been close I suppose but maybe not exact.
It's a double-edged sword though isn't it?.
If the clocks didn't actually chime together then why didn't the witnesses mention this?.
If they did chime together then how come Mrs Long heard only the Brewers clock when she was suggested to be walking past #29 Hanbury St.?.
Others living inside #29 claim to have heard the Spitalfields clock but not the Brewers.
It's a puzzle, but only if you believe Mrs Long was passing the front of #29, if you think she was somewhere in Brick Lane, and heard the Brewers clock chime just before she turned into Hanbury St., then there is no problem with the proximity.
Then you ask, "why didn't they come forward?", well, we have that puzzle with a host of potential witnesses in all the other murders.
Remember the 'heavy tread of a policeman in Miller's Court'?, why wasn't he at that inquest?.
The reason's maybe two-fold, firstly that couple in Hanbury St. may have had an illicite reandevous and secondly, the inquest was not a trial, the reason for an inquest is to determin cause of death so not every witness is called or sought out.
Angel, for some reason I have always pictured Mrs Long coming south down Brick Lane and passing the brewery, but you raise a good point about Church St. (later Fournier St.) being south of Hanbury St.
Thats a puzzle, maybe it wasn't 'Church St, Spitalfields', but another Church St. in Shoreditch or Bethnal Green. Good point.
And Sarah again..
Mrs Long's testimony was not questioned as far as her route goes, she could have set out at a different time, she could have arrived at a different time, or there could be a legitimate reason for her taking 30 minutes from start to finish. But, her reference to the clock chime is perhaps the best clue to timing these events.
Regards, Jon
|
Nina Thomas
Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 22
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 10:58 pm: | |
Angel,
There is the possibility that Elizabeth Long's residence was on Church Row. I found Church Row on the following map from the "Charles Booth Online Archive". 180400,6,large,5,http://booth.lse.ac.uk/cgi-bin/do.pl?sub=view_booth_and_barth&args=531000,180400,6,large,5
The direction and distance seem to be right.
Nina |
Nina Thomas
Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 23
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 12:49 am: | |
I don't believe I missed this.
Nina 
|
Angel
Sergeant
Username: Angel
Post Number: 13
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 4:53 am: | |
Hi Nina,
We have made a similar discovery. Late this afternoon I found the same information. Going through a London Street name changes directory I noticed both Church Row and Church Street Bethnal Green. Church Row is now St Matthews Row and Church Street appears to be now called Redchurch Street.
Both The Times & Telegraph 20/9/1888 edition published Church Row as her address; The Times added '198' as her street number. If this proves to be correct, it's odd how all the books and articles I've read have continued to place her at 32 Church St. Whitechapel.
Maybe someone with access to census records could shed some more light on this. HINT HINT. Might be nice being involved in correcting a mistake - minor though it is - after all this time.
What intriques me is, that with all the discussion about times and distances travelled what is everyone using as an arbitrary starting point. I assume that this has at some stage been agreed upon, otherwise any discussion would be irrelivent.
Could you nice people (disregarding Nina's maps for a moment as there is still more information needed to determine whether Mrs Long lived here) please point out to me the exact starting point that the times and distances discussion is based upon. Remember that we are looking at Church St. Whitechapel and not Bethnal Green according to the recorded information at hand and this includes Sorcebook, Sugden etc. Silly though it may seem to some there is a difference. Saying I live at Whitechapel when I live at Bethnal Green is not the same thing. Especially when coroners and police are trying to establish accurate information.
There is no such thing as right or wrong - only places to stand. |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 226
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 1:16 am: | |
Well done Nina, you may have provided a solution to a festering problem, namely, where was Mrs Long's home?.
Angel, from several suggestions I recall no-one has looked beyond Church St. Whitechapel, as her home address, which of course only adds to the mystery.
The Daily Telegraph provides "Church Row, Whitechapel" and it appears no such street exists in Whitechapel by that name, so naturally many have chosen to write Church 'Street' without any consideration to the fact she took 30 minutes to get to Hanbury St.
While there is a Church Row in Bethnal Green, it may well be that Mrs Long in her testimony only said "Church Row", the press added "Whitechapel" to complete the statement, but incorrectly as it appears.
To walk from Church Row westward on Bethnal Green Road to the northern end of Brick Lane, then south on Brick Lane would bring her past the Brewery clock, then west on Hanbury Street towards the Spitalfields Market could very easily take 30-35 minutes, reaching the market not long after 5:30am. Substantiating her testimony, hence she would be vindicated.
The length of the street named 'Church Row' up in Bethnal Green seems short, too short to have 198+ dwellings, but that will have to await a more detailed investigation, it's at times like this when Viper (we miss you old friend) could have come to the rescue.
[perhaps 32 Church Row was her address]
Nina, I think you've set the ball rolling, there's obviously some error's crept into the news accounts somewhere along the line, a little deeper research is needed, census lists, house numbers, etc, and this may be another quirk put to rest.
The implications are substantial, if it takes 30 minutes to walk from Church Row, Bethnal Green, to the Brewery in Brick Lane, it will substabtiate her story and seriously question the usual belief that the couple seen by her was 'Jack' & Annie, to substantiate her home address will call that belief into question and refocus attention on one of two possibly alternatives, either Cadoche was wrong in his timing somewhere, or, the couple outside #29 was not Annie & 'Jack'.
Regards, Jon
(Message edited by Jon on September 13, 2004) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3004
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 8:16 am: | |
Hi all
The list of Longs is a long list but I made a short list of the Longs living in Bethnal Green in 1891.
There weren't any living at a Church Anything. There were two living with a James Long, and of these the one living at 39 Blythe St looks like the best bet to me. Her husband was a cart minder, and this ties in with what Sugden says.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3005
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 8:59 am: | |
With 1881, the best bet might be James, 35, labourer, and Elizabeth, 38, again no children, and both born Bethnal Green (as in 1891). Address 9, Royston St. Is Royston St in the east end?
Robert |
Nina Thomas
Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 25
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 1:00 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
The listing for 1891 seems to be a good match.
The only problem I see is the distance. Would it take longer than 30 minutes to walk to Hanbury Street? Perhaps the Longs moved there after 1888.
Nina |
Nina Thomas
Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 26
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 1:14 pm: | |
Could it be that Elizabeth Longs correct residence was not given out in order to protect her?
Nina  |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3007
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 2:03 pm: | |
Hi Nina
I suppose that's possible.
In 1901 she was still at 39 Blythe St, only by now she was a 64-year-old widow. She seems to have liked living in Bethnal Green, anyhow!
Robert |
Angel
Sergeant
Username: Angel
Post Number: 14
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 8:47 am: | |
Hi all,
Alternatively, Elizabeth Long is sometimes cited; Elizabeth Darrell/Durrell. A search on this may produce some results. The best I have available are the free sites that make mention of the Elizabeth Darrell/Durrell names, but offer no further enlightenment.
Is there any way of locating the length of a street, number of houses etc? Reason being with The Times mentioning No. 198 as a street address, this would limit the search? I have seen survey maps on Casebook numbered such. What I don't know is how some of the numbering is laid out against the difference between individual addresses, no matter how many people lived there, and how the current days flats/apartments are listed, i.e as Street No.34 or as Currently in use in Australia, Street No.34-38. I imagine this would have an effect on the length of the street also.
There is no such thing as right or wrong - only places to stand. |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 231
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 5:05 pm: | |
Good point Angel, yes I wonder if Robert could look up "Darrell" or "Durrell". I would do it myself but my CD drive is kaput.
Church Row, Bethnal Green, does not appear long enough on my Ordnance Survey maps to accomodate a #198, perhaps the alternate #32 is the correct number.
Regards, Jon |
Nina Thomas
Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 34
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 5:15 pm: | |
Angel, Jon,
Sugden's Complete History
Notes for 5 Dark Annie #17
There were Church streets in Bethel Green, Minories and Spitalfields. Mrs. Long could have lived in any one of them, or in Church Lane, by Whitechapel Church. All these four had house numbers up to or beyond 32 but none as high as 198.
I hope this helps to narrow the search a little.
Nina |
Angel
Sergeant
Username: Angel
Post Number: 15
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 9:23 pm: | |
Hi Jon, Nina.
Jon, the CD you speak of, may I ask what it is?
Nina, thanks for that information. Is the Church Lane, by Whitechapel Church the one referred to as a possible route used after Elizabeth Stride's killing?
There is no such thing as right or wrong - only places to stand. |
Nina Thomas
Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 37
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 10:15 pm: | |
Angel,
Yes, the Church Lane mentioned is the same.
Nina |
Angel
Sergeant
Username: Angel
Post Number: 17
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 10:51 pm: | |
Hi Nina,
Thank you for the information.
This would put Mrs Long in the wrong direction - I hazard to guess - at least according to the information re the Brewery Clock and turning into the north side of Hanbury Street.
Still, it would narrow the search again.
(Message edited by Angel on September 16, 2004)
There is no such thing as right or wrong - only places to stand. |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 233
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 2:53 pm: | |
Hi Nina.
"..There were Church streets in Bethel Green, Minories and Spitalfields. Mrs. Long could have lived in any one of them, or in Church Lane, by Whitechapel Church. All these four had house numbers up to or beyond 32 but none as high as 198."
Thats exactly my point, the #198 must be bogus, but we can't limit our search to "Church St.", there is also "Church Row" to consider and the fact that one address was presented by the press as "Church St. Whitechapel" means she would have been walking north as Whitechapel is south of Hanbury St. which is in Spitalfields.
My money is on "#32 Church Row, Bethnal Green" as being thee most likley address, but, detailed research is required first.
Angel, I was referring to my CD of 'The London 1891 Census", I never got the 1881 list, not yet anyway.....I need a new computer...
Regards, Jon |
Angel
Sergeant
Username: Angel
Post Number: 21
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 7:44 pm: | |
Hi Jon,
Thanks for the CD information. Now for the really silly question... Where can I find them and are they a worthwhile investment?
Church Row, Bethnal Green certainly puts her in a position that validates her statements, which may not help some schools of thought. Soon she'll have been out for a morning jog, placing her Lord knows where at what time.
Much to find out thought, as you succinctly put it.
There is no such thing as right or wrong - only places to stand. |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 241
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 6:28 pm: | |
Angel, this is where I got my CD's from.
http://www.genealogy.demon.co.uk
They are certainly worth it to someone who has an interest in such archives. Not for the casual browser. Look at what Robert posted above on Sept 13th, that photo is directly from the archives, thats how you see the records, a little hard on the eyes.
Regards, Jon
(Message edited by Jon on September 18, 2004) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3052
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 1:14 pm: | |
Hi Jon, Angel
I don't have the CD, so I don't know what that's like, but on Ancestry there's a magnifier that let's you get really close to the writing.
I just wish the 1851 and 61 censuses were indexed and online, because squinting at someone's scrawl through a microfilm viewer is hard for someone with poor eyesight like myself.
Robert |
Angel
Sergeant
Username: Angel
Post Number: 22
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 7:54 am: | |
Hi Jon, Robert
Thank you both for the info.
Think I'll leave the ancestry area to someone better versed and with more than a passing interest. I have enough headaches these days going through microfilm at the state archives.
There is no such thing as right or wrong - only places to stand. |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 297
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 5:14 pm: | |
For anyone who is interested..
The 1891 census records a family by the name of Long residing at 31 Church Row, Bethnal Green.
William Long, Married (Husband), Bricklayer, age 65.
Mary Long, Married (Wife), (no occup), age 62.
Amelia Long, adopted, age 9.
More needs to be done as this family could be Elizabeth's inlaws and Elizabeth and her husband could have been staying there three years previous in 1888.
But it's a start...
When I figure out how to copy a picture of this section of the archives I'll poste it for all to read.
Regards, Jon
(Yes, I got my new computer (oh, joy!!))
 |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 95
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 6:44 pm: | |
Hi Jon,
Great find!
They could very possibly be relatives as you stated. It seems they also resided on Church Row in 1881. The 1881 census has the Long's residing at 17 Church Row.
William Long(head)age 55, Bricklayer
Mary Long (wife) age 52
Emma Owen (other) age 39 Housekeeper
Family history library film: 1341093
Public records office ref.: RG11
Piece/Folio: 0430/51
Page Number: 11
Nina
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
