Books




Face of Winifred May Davies
Latest topics
» Why Jesus Is Not God
Mon 17 Apr 2017 - 0:09 by Karen

» The Fourth Reich
Fri 14 Apr 2017 - 14:14 by Karen

» Allah, The Real Serpent of the Garden
Tue 7 Mar 2017 - 11:45 by Karen

» THE INNOCENCE OF JEWS
Sat 4 Mar 2017 - 12:06 by Karen

» Hillary Clinton (Hillroy Was Here)
Fri 28 Oct 2016 - 17:38 by Karen

» Alien on the Moon
Thu 20 Oct 2016 - 21:57 by Karen

» Martian Nonsense Repeats Itself
Thu 20 Oct 2016 - 18:43 by Karen

» Enlil and Enki
Fri 7 Oct 2016 - 17:11 by Karen

» Israel Shoots Down Drone - Peter Kucznir's Threat
Wed 24 Aug 2016 - 22:55 by Karen

» Rome is Babylon
Sun 24 Jul 2016 - 21:27 by Karen

Links












Gallery



Inspector Edward Collard

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Inspector Edward Collard

Post by Karen on Wed 5 Jan 2011 - 2:04

THE HOUNDSDITCH FIRE.
CORONER'S INQUIRY THIS DAY.

This morning, Mr. S.F. Langham held an inquest at the City Mortuary, Golden-lane, Barbican, on the bodies of the four victims of the fire at 15, Hutchinson-street, Houndsditch. The names of the deceased are: Rosetta Boginsky, alias Phillips, Judith Salzedo, Sophia Salzedo, and Mordecai Salzedo. - Mr. Superintendent Foster and Inspector Collard watched the case on behalf of the police authorities.
Police-constable Webber, who met with injuries while endeavouring to arouse and rescue some of the inmates, was present to give evidence, but is still unable to walk without crutches. The Fire Brigade was represented by Mr. Superintendent Campbell.
The deceased are foreign Jews. The Jury was mainly composed of members of the Hebrew persuasion.
Jacob Salzedo, who described himself as a "killer" (slaughterer of animals under the Jewish ritual), identified three of the deceased as his mother, Judith Salzedo, aged 75; his sister, Sophia Salzedo, aged 39; and his nephew, Mordecai Salzedo, who was three years old, and was deaf and dumb. They lodged at No. 15, Hutchinson-street, Houndsditch, and were tenants of Mrs. Phillips. They occupied two front rooms on the first floor, Mrs. Phillips and her children occupying the ground floor and two rooms at the top of the house.
In answer to further questions, the witness said his mother's furniture was insured for 100 pounds, but he could not say whether Mrs. Boginsky's was. His mother was bedridden, and therefore could not assist herself to escape. There was not much oil, he believed, on the premises, as a very limited trade was done at the shop.
Police-constable Charles Webber, No. 934, of the City Police, said that on Friday morning, about ten minutes past three, he was passing 15, Hutchinson-street, when he noticed a light through two small holes in the shutters of the parlour window. The fire was in the parlour at the back of the shop.
Superintendent Campbell here explained that the window of the parlour opened into Ellison-street, the shop (a corner one) being in Hutchinson-street.
Police-constable Webber said he at once sprang his rattle and aroused the inmates. Immediately after he gave the alarm he heard someone in the house screaming out, "Police! Police! " and he believed, "Murder!" He was not certain as to hearing "Murder."
What part of the house? - The upper part, but on which floor I could not say. I continued knocking at the door, when it gave way. I went inside the shop, but it was so black with smoke that I could not see anything in front of me. I crouched down to see if I could see the entrance to the staircase, but the smoke was so dense that I retreated into the street, closing the door after me. I then sent a man for the Fire Brigade; but as he was a foreigner, and did not seem to understand, I was about to go myself, when I saw a person at the first-floor window, in the act of dropping out. I endeavoured to catch the person, but was knocked down by the violence of the contact. He was disabled in consequence, and had been in the City Police Hospital since.
Police-constable Samuel Carter deposed to going for the fire-escape, which arrived as quickly as possible. Two persons, however, had jumped from the second floor window, and witness saw someone come to the first-floor window, but there was such a dense smoke that the figure disappeared. He could not even say whether it was a man or a woman. There was then not a great deal of flame. The fire-escape rescued two persons from the second-floor, but when they got to the ground they were apparently lifeless, and were taken into a neighbour's house.
Police-constable George Linge gave evidence as to the rescue of some of the inmates by getting a sheet held under the windows.
Leonard Davis, a fireman, stated that he was stationed with the Brigade at Bishopsgate. He received the call at 3:17 on Friday morning. The house was apparently well alight when he arrived. He extinguished the fire in the back room and at the staircase. The back parlour and the stairs leading from the ground to the first floor were in flames.
The Coroner - Can you form any opinion as to the origin of the fire - where it occurred? - I believe the fire was in the back parlour, under the staircase. There was very little damage done in the shop.
James Pierce, Engineer to the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, in charge of the Whitechapel Station, stated that he and a comrade made their way to the second floor, and found two persons in the front room, both being insensible and apparently lifeless. Those were two of the rescued persons now discharged from the hospital. Two other firemen entered and passed out a child, which was lifeless. Witness then saw the three other deceased. Mrs. Salzedo was lying on a bed; Sophia Salzedo, her daughter, was on the floor, as if she had tried to get to the window; and Mrs. Boginsky was lying dead, with their clothes on, on a chair-bedstead. From a later inspection witness thought that she went downstairs to try and assist the paralysed woman, Mrs. Salzedo, and, after returning to her room, was suffocated.
The Coroner - Have you examined the premises, and can you say how the fire originated? - There is no doubt that the fire originated at the foot of the stairs. The lad who was taken to the Hospital informed me that some coke was kept under the stairs, and it is my impression that some hot ashes were inadvertently thrown there instead of placing them outside.
Raphael Stahl, living at Mile-end, stated that the deceased Mrs. Boginsky, was his sister. She was 55 years of age, and the widow of a traveller. Witness often visited her. He had never seen her put any hot cinders in the cupboard behind the staircase.
Mr. Henry James Sequiera, surgeon, said that all the deceased were very much scorched, but had the appearance of having died from asphyxia. They were suffocated before the fire reached the bodies.
The Coroner, in his summing-up, remarked that every effort had been made by the Fire Brigade, and other persons, to rescue the unfortunate deceased. There was nothing to suggest that the fire was the work of an incendiary, and he (the Coroner) should therefore suggest to the Jury an open verdict as to that - that the deceased died from suffocation, but how the fire was caused there was no evidence to show.
The Jury returned a verdict to that effect.
The funeral of the deceased took place this afternoon. Mrs. Boginsky was buried in the Jewish cemetery at West Ham, while the other three bodies were interred in the Mile-end Burial Ground.

Source: The Echo, Tuesday January 24, 1888, Page 4

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Inspector Edward Collard

Post by Karen on Wed 5 Jan 2011 - 2:19

A MYSTERIOUS POCKET.

Thomas Perry, 62, of no occupation, and John Cox, 50, described as a commission agent, both refusing their addresses, were charged on remand at the Guildhall on Wednesday with being concerned with another man (not in custody) with loitering in Liverpool street, supposed for the purpose of committing a felony, and also with attempting to steal from the dress-pocket of a lady in New Broad-street. Perry was further charged with assaulting Police-constable Whitehead. The two prisoners and the other man were being watched when they were seen to make attempts on the pockets of several ladies. They were taken into custody, when Perry became very violent, and dangerously assaulted Whitehead. At the station Perry desired that his coat-pockets might be examined, as there was nothing in them, and there was no hole. The inspector put his hands in the pockets, and could find no hole; but when Detective Shephard took up the coat, he put his hand into the left-hand pocket, and it came through. Shephard shewed the inspector that the upper part of the lining was slit, and the hand could be put through this. At the court, Perry asked Shephard to shew the alderman how he did it. The officer took the coat up but could not put his hand through. - Inspector Collard deposed that he took the charge, and distinctly saw Shephard put his hand through the pocket, and he pointed out how it was done. - Perry was sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour for his attack on the constable, and for loitering three months, as a rogue and a vagabond. Cox was also sent to prison for three months with hard labour, as a rogue and a vagabond.

Source: The Wandsworth and Battersea District Times, Saturday August 24, 1889, Page 7

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Inspector Edward Collard

Post by Karen on Sat 26 May 2012 - 18:55

The following incident occurred in 1869 when Inspector Edward Collard was only a police-constable.

THE EXTRAORDINARY MUTILATION CASE.

On Wednesday Ellen Cook, a very robust -looking woman, 44 years of age, was indicted at the Old Bailey for feloniously wounding her husband, James Cook, with intent to murder him. In a second count she was charged with wounding with intent to inflict bodily harm.
The facts of the case were of a most extraordinary description, and it appeared that on the 24th February last the husband of the prisoner was conveyed to Guy's hospital in a most deplorable state. His right eye was pushed in, his left eye also bruised, and he was otherwise injured in a most diabolical manner. The statement he made was that on the morning of that day his wife was very familiar with him, and he allowed himself to be tied down to a bedstead; as he had done on several previous occasions, there being no one else in the house at the time but themselves. His clothes had been taken off; but there was not sufficient rope with which to tie him; and the prisoner then went downstairs and got more rope, and he was eventually secured firmly hand and foot. The prisoner then stood by the side of the bed, and in a short time the prosecutor felt that he was being cut. He screamed and shrieked out, but the prisoner was indifferent to his cries, and went on until she had carried out her fearful operation. She then threw herself upon him, and, having pressed her fingers on his eyes, left him and went downstairs. He struggled, and was able to free himself, and then went to a surgeon's on the opposite side of the street, and he was afterwards conveyed to the hospital. The prisoner absconded, but the police got on her track, and she was apprehended three days afterwards. When charged with the offence she said her husband was accustomed to have prostitutes in the house, and she was determined to put an end to it. Afterwards, when taken before a magistrate and the case was gone into, she made a long statement, to the effect that they struggled together and that her husband wounded himself.
When the prisoner was now put into the dock she said in a clear voice that she was not guilty; and never intended to murder him, and only acted in her own defence; she never used a knife, and never tied him down to a bed in her life.
Evidence was then given for the prosecution, and while the case was proceeding the prisoner frequently sobbed and declared her innocence.
The first witness was Inspector Turpin, who described the state of the room in which the crime was perpetrated, and produced a rope and a large table-knife on which there was blood, and which he found in the room.
Mr. Rendle, house surgeon at Guy's hospital, on the 24th February, said that the prosecutor, James Cook, a man of about 43 years of age, was brought to the hospital. His right eye projected more than was natural, and both eyelids were pushed in behind the eyeballs. The witness then described the other injuries, which were of a most atrocious character. The prosecutor was then in a very dangerous state, but he was now recovering. He had lost the sight of one eye. - In answer to the judge, the witness said that when the prosecutor was brought to the hospital his life was in danger, but not immediately.
Police-constable Edward Collard deposed to taking the prisoner into custody on the 27th of February and said the prisoner made the statement referred to above. - In cross-examination, the witness said the prisoner wore a Paisley shawl, and he could not see whether the body of her dress was torn.
The prisoner, who was accommodated with a seat, here stood up and displayed the body of her dress, which was very much torn.
The prosecutor was then brought into the witness-box in a chair. His head was bandaged, and he seemed very pale and weak. He had been brought from Guy's hospital, to which he was taken back after being examined. He said he lived at 42, Star-corner, Bermondsey, with his wife, and on the 24th February, after they had finished breakfast, about half-past 11 o'clock, there being no one else in the house, she asked him to go upstairs and allow her to tie him to the bed, and she would be good-tempered for the rest of the day. He consented, and was tied down to the bed after undressing himself; while being tied there was a knock at the door, and the prisoner went down and opened it, and when she returned said it was only somebody who asked for the tobacconist's shop next door. On five previous occasions he had been tied down in the same way. In a short time he felt that he was being cut, and he screamed out. The witness then described the outrage that had been committed upon him, and which was of a more diabolical nature than can well be conceived. The prisoner afterwards fell upon him and attempted to gouge out his eyes, and then went away, and he managed to free himself and was conveyed to the hospital. - In cross-examination, he said he had been married to the prisoner 18 years, and she had five children to him.
The prisoner said she had 10 children. Her statement before the magistrate was then read, and in it she said the prosecutor attacked her with the knife.
This closed the evidence, and Mr. Montagu Williams then addressed the jury for the defence, and contended that there was no evidence on which the jury could convict the prisoner on the first count. He animadverted on the circumstance that no one appeared to have heard the prosecutor's screams, and said the state of the prisoner's dress showed that there must have been a deadly struggle, and that this was consistent with the prisoner's statement.
The learned judge then summed up, and the jury immediately found the prisoner "Guilty" on the second count. She was sentenced to 15 years' penal servitude.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, April 11, 1869, Page 4

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Inspector Edward Collard

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum