Leaving one's beat

[Elamarna]

Found it!

Here's the Goad maps extracts. Doesn't prove anything, but opens some interesting questions about where Mizen went to "knock up". The nearset "D" for dwellings are down Hanbury and down Montague. There are some dwellings on the opposite side of Baker's Row, but that was Neil's beat (?) in "J" division.

Hi Dusty
yes the nearest would appear to be next to the corner building in Hanbury, however the Goad is 1890, and it is possible there were people living above the buildings in 1888.
I also note that the Building on the Southern corner of old Montague is designated PH I assume public house, can we be sure no one was living on these premise.

steve

[FrankO]

Found it!

Here's the Goad maps extracts. Doesn't prove anything, but opens some interesting questions about where Mizen went to "knock up". The nearset "D" for dwellings are down Hanbury and down Montague. There are some dwellings on the opposite side of Baker's Row, but that was Neil's beat (?) in "J" division.

Hi Dusty & Steve,

It has been my understanding that Mizen was at the end of Hanbury Street when he met the 2 carmen. Firstly, because Mizen stated so and, secondly, because if they would have met in the blue marked out area in the picture attached, the carmen would not have been able to see Mizen knocking up before Lechmere spoke to him (and we know from his Lloyd’s Weekly News interview of 2 September that at least Paul had seen him knocking up before they spoke) and wouldn’t have been able to see him continue to knock up at one other place, as Mizen would very likely needed to have been down Baker’s Row while the carmen were already out of sight in Hanbury Street.

Not that would change much, but the end of Hanbury Street seems the best guess, as it would leave a couple of houses open for Mizen to continue to knock up at and Paul & Lechmere would have been able to see Mizen do it.

All the best,
Frank

[Elamarna]

Hi Dusty & Steve,

It has been my understanding that Mizen was at the end of Hanbury Street when he met the 2 carmen. Firstly, because Mizen stated so and, secondly, because if they would have met in the blue marked out area in the picture attached, the carmen would not have been able to see Mizen knocking up before Lechmere spoke to him (and we know from his Lloyd’s Weekly News interview of 2 September that at least Paul had seen him knocking up before they spoke) and wouldn’t have been able to see him continue to knock up at one other place, as Mizen would very likely needed to have been down Baker’s Row while the carmen were already out of sight in Hanbury Street.

Not that would change much, but the end of Hanbury Street seems the best guess, as it would leave a couple of houses open for Mizen to continue to knock up at and Paul & Lechmere would have been able to see Mizen do it.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank

Good points, but if they walk up the Eastern side of Bakers and cross to the junction rather than crossing as soon as they leave Whites Row they have a different view.

And the exact position they see him is open to some debate. Lechmere says coming out of old Montague. Paul says at the corner of. Mizen says in some reports in Hanbury, in other reports on the junction of Hanbury and Bakers. One report says Bakers at the end of Campbell street?

It does not help not having the original transcript of course.

In addition Mizen seems to say the knock up he completes is the same as when they approached him.

And of course the fact he is knocking up, one presumes at an agreed time could mean that he has to retrace part of his beat to achieve this. ( he agrees to knock up say second house in Hanbury at 3.45 but is there earlier and then does say old Montague before arriving back at the aforementioned house before 3.45 and knocking up).


It seems to put him around the junction of the 3 roads, exactly where is uncertain.


Steve

[David Orsam]

Hi All,

Personally, I prefer the East London Observer, 1st September 1888, version of events—

It's strange that you would prefer this story over the actual evidence in the case, Simon, including that of four independent members of the public (Emma Green, Walter Purkis, Patrick Mulshaw and Henry Tomkins) who all swore that they saw the body of Nichols lying on the ground in Bucks Row surrounded by a number of constables, meaning that Neil was hardly likely to have carried the body to the mortuary on his own, along with a group of road cleaning scavengers. Mind you, it's the fifth time you've posted that newspaper extract, in one form or another, on this forum since 2008, so it's just a shame that you didn’t find any space for it in your book given that you appear to think it's what actually happened.

[John G]

It's strange that you would prefer this story over the actual evidence in the case, Simon, including that of four independent members of the public (Emma Green, Walter Purkis, Patrick Mulshaw and Henry Tomkins) who all swore that they saw the body of Nichols lying on the ground in Bucks Row surrounded by a number of constables, meaning that Neil was hardly likely to have carried the body to the mortuary on his own, along with a group of road cleaning scavengers. Mind you, it's the fifth time you've posted that newspaper extract, in one form or another, on this forum since 2008, so it's just a shame that you didn’t find any space for it in your book given that you appear to think it's what actually happened.

A cynical person, David, a category I'm sure neither of us fall into-perish the thought!-might suspect that Simon's trawling through obscure articles in order to give credence to a conspiracy theory. Perish the thought!

[David Orsam]

A cynical person, David, a category I'm sure neither of us fall into-perish the thought!-might suspect that Simon's trawling through obscure articles in order to give credence to a conspiracy theory. Perish the thought!

No, I'm sure he wouldn't....

....But if he did I would love to know what that conspiracy theory actually is.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Conspiracy? Could it be?

The story is sufficiently off-the-wall to be true, and a lot of the inquest evidence was contradictory and utterly worthless.

But please don't mind me. Carry on. Keep believing the official version, and in ten years' time you won't have moved forward one millimeter.

Regards,

Simon

[John G]

Contradictory evidence doesn't necessarily imply a conspiracy. Neither does multiple examples of contradictory evidence. A lot more's required before such a proposition can be regarded as credible.

Now the Austin case...that was as surefire conspiracy/cover-up that I've seen.

[David Orsam]

Hi All,

Conspiracy? Could it be?

The story is sufficiently off-the-wall to be true, and a lot of the inquest evidence was contradictory and utterly worthless.

But please don't mind me. Carry on. Keep believing the official version, and in ten years' time you won't have moved forward one millimeter.

But what is significant about it even if it is true?

Why do you "prefer" it?

I can't help feeling that if the official version was that Neil took the body to the mortuary with the scavengers but one newspaper published a story about how Thain fetched the doctor and Mizen fetched the ambulance you would prefer the newspaper story.

You just prefer the East London Observer story because it's different to the "official" version don't you? You love the idea of police lying, isn't that right?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But what is significant about it even if it is true?

Why do you "prefer" it?

I can't help feeling that if the official version was that Neil took the body to the mortuary with the scavengers but one newspaper published a story about how Thain fetched the doctor and Mizen fetched the ambulance you would prefer the newspaper story.

You just prefer the East London Observer story because it's different to the "official" version don't you? You love the idea of police lying, isn't that right?

Anything familiar here David?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=viz+grassy+knollington&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB704GB704&oq=viz+grassy+knollington&aqs=chrome..69i57.13036j0j8&hl=en-GB&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=xnHbyS5rmcarFM:

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

What do you mean, I "love the idea of police lying"?

It's not a case of loving or even liking the idea.

It's a fact. The police lied from beginning to end, from Emma Smith to "Mary Kelly" and beyond.

That's why the Whitechapel murders are a mystery and you're all running around in ever-decreasing circles.

Regards,

Simon

[John G]

Hi David,

What do you mean, I "love the idea of police lying"?

It's not a case of loving or even liking the idea.

It's a fact. The police lied from beginning to end, from Emma Smith to "Mary Kelly" and beyond.

That's why the Whitechapel murders are a mystery and you're all running around in ever-decreasing circles.

Regards,

Simon

The Truth is Out There!

Just out of interest, do you have any solid evidence for the police lying? And just for clarification, I don't mean on the basis of how, say, Fox Mulder would define "solid evidence."

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

What do you mean, I "love the idea of police lying"?

It's not a case of loving or even liking the idea.

It's a fact. The police lied from beginning to end, from Emma Smith to "Mary Kelly" and beyond.

That's why the Whitechapel murders are a mystery and you're all running around in ever-decreasing circles.

A fact that, unfortunately, you haven't been able to prove, or even get close to demonstrating.

And I haven't been running around in any circles at all Simon. I've never even tried to solve "the mystery". You, on the other hand, are clearly running around like a headless chicken trying to work out who these five different murderers were for the five different victims.

And you haven't got a clue! You can't even tell us one of them. I know, coz I've read your book.

[Simon Wood]

Hi John G,

Plenty.

The whole thing is one great swirling whirlpool of lies.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

The whole thing is one great swirling whirlpool of lies.

You think Emma Green, Walter Purkis, Patrick Mulshaw and Henry Tomkins all lied at the inquest?