The Bucks Row Project Summary Report.

[Elamarna]

am i reading the 93-95 OS wrong, New Cottage appears to have no yard of its own, there is a yard for the building next door, but not for number 6 other than Brown's yard.
yet as Joshua points out Goad shows a small yard, i think i will go with goad. However i am open to suggestions.
dont think there enough here to add to the work, but it intereting nonetheless

steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Of course, if Green was working for Brown's in their stable yard at the time of the murder, it shows it was still open.
But it's possible that it was just an assumption that he worked in the yard next door to his house, as Brown's also had stables across the road in Essex Wharf.

[Fisherman]

Would Emma Green refer to Brown´s yard as "my yard"? And would she not have a broom of her own, having to use Brown´s ditto?

[Fisherman]

Lets be clear here, I am not suggestion Mizen is a bad man, and certainly not a rotten liar. I make it very clear that I do not beleive he broke the police code on the 31st.
What I suggest is a "white lie" it has no effect on the inquest or murder.



Steve

I´m always clear, Steve. I was going on how you earlier said that there was no other word to use for Mizen than liar - or something along those lines. I find that hard to reconcile with being a good and responsible man, not least if you are a copper. And even less so if you had no reason to lie in the first place.

[Jon Guy]

Of course, if Green was working for Brown's in their stable yard at the time of the murder, it shows it was still open.

Haha ... that would be interesting !!
Especially, as there was also a James Green standing near 29 Hanbury Street when Chapman was murdered

[Jon Guy]

Would Emma Green refer to Brown´s yard as "my yard"? And would she not have a broom of her own, having to use Brown´s ditto?

Yes, I read it as Emma Greens yard, and it was her own broom
Saying that, would you use your broom to clean up the blood ?

[Elamarna]

I´m always clear, Steve. I was going on how you earlier said that there was no other word to use for Mizen than liar - or something along those lines. I find that hard to reconcile with being a good and responsible man, not least if you are a copper. And even less so if you had no reason to lie in the first place.

If you say something which is untrue, it is a lie. However there are malicious lies and white lies. That you believe he had no reason to lie, is entirely your choice, which you are entitled to.
However, not break the police code, but feeling the need to excuse oneself by telling a white lie are not incompatible positions at all.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Would Emma Green refer to Brown´s yard as "my yard"? And would she not have a broom of her own, having to use Brown´s ditto?

As pointed out Glad shows a yard, missing on the OS.
My initial response was my own misreading, soon realised.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Yes, I read it as Emma Greens yard, and it was her own broom
Saying that, would you use your broom to clean up the blood ?

That would depend on the type of broom. Some are much sturdier and can be rinsed off and dried quite easily. Much like the kind you have on boats to scrub the fishblood away. I imagine there were such brooms in use for cleaning your doorstep and the outside stairs and suchlike.

[Fisherman]

If you say something which is untrue, it is a lie. However there are malicious lies and white lies. That you believe he had no reason to lie, is entirely your choice, which you are entitled to.
However, not break the police code, but feeling the need to excuse oneself by telling a white lie are not incompatible positions at all.


Steve

No - but it could get Mizen into trouble quite easily. There wqas still Paul to be heard as Mizen gave his evidence. Would Mizen risk having Paul revealing him as a liar? I don´t think so, especially as Mizen would be quite aware that he had made no mistake and broken no rules. The best and most helpful thing he could do would be to be as clear as possible. And we can see how he tries to pass on vital information when he speaks of the blood, arguably to inform the inquest that the killer could not have been long gone when Nichols was found.
You are going to need a very good reason to implicate the PC as a liar. Do you, Steve?

[Elamarna]

No - but it could get Mizen into trouble quite easily. There wqas still Paul to be heard as Mizen gave his evidence. Would Mizen risk having Paul revealing him as a liar? I don´t think so, especially as Mizen would be quite aware that he had made no mistake and broken no rules. The best and most helpful thing he could do would be to be as clear as possible. And we can see how he tries to pass on vital information when he speaks of the blood, arguably to inform the inquest that the killer could not have been long gone when Nichols was found.
You are going to need a very good reason to implicate the PC as a liar. Do you, Steve?

You ignore that Paul had already given his version, even if in a paper. And that combined with Neil was the reason he felt compelled to tell an untruth.
Of course Paul was not asked at the inquest, that on its own could raise questions.
I have very good reasons, and better than opinion, evidence

Steve

[Fisherman]

You ignore that Paul had already given his version, even if in a paper. And that combined with Neil was the reason he felt compelled to tell an untruth.
Of course Paul was not asked at the inquest, that on its own could raise questions.
I have very good reasons, and better than opinion, evidence

Steve

I don´t ignore Pauls paper interview at all. I leave it out because it did not touch on the issue we discuss in any way. Paul said not a iot about whether Lechmere mentioned another PC or not, and if anything, that should worry Mizen if he was going to invent it as a lie.

Evidence? Comes in many forms, does it not? Mizens words are evidence to the effect that Lechmere was a liar, for example.

I have an uneasy feeling about all of this, Steve.

[Elamarna]

I don´t ignore Pauls paper interview at all. I leave it out because it did not touch on the issue we discuss at all. Paul said not a iot about whether Lechmere mentioned another PC or not, and if anything, that should worry Mizen if he was going to invent it as a lie.

Evidence? Comes in many forms, does it not? Mizens words are evidence to the effect that Lechmere was a liar, for example.

I have an uneasy feeling about all of this, Steve.

Lets see what people think when they read the argument shall we?

Lets see if the evidence presented stands up to scrutiny, it certainly has more going for it in terms of evidence than the "classic scam", which on reflection does no say much in the way of evidence at all.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Lets see what people think when they read the argument shall we?

Lets see if the evidence presented stands up to scrutiny, it certainly has more going for it in terms of evidence than the "classic scam", which on reflection does no say much in the way of evidence at all.



Steve

I note that you skip over the question of Paul and how he said nothing in his paper interview about the second PC matter?

And yes, of course we shall see how your argument, eh... "stands up to scrutiny".

My, we are getting serious, are we not?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, they are two different matters indeed.

And yes, Lechmere´s candidacy is a very strong one indeed.

Typo alert!

That should read ‘weak.’