Lechmere validity

[Elamarna]

Ok, based on a story in The Echo (Sept 21, 1888; Thanks for the pointer Steve!), I've traced out what appears to be PC Neil's beat. It's described like this:

...the third constable would commence at Brady street, cover Whitechapel road, Baker's row, Thomas street, Queen Anne street, and Buck's row, to Brady street, and all the interior, this consisting of about ten streets, courts, passage, &c....

So, I've traced around those streets and up and back down "all the interior" streets and passages. I've made one or two judgement calls, such as only the N-S bit of Thomas Street, as another PC in Baker's Row I'm assuming would do the E-W portion, and I'm assuming he doesn't go all the way back down Thomas but cuts over to Queen Anne Street, does that, then back to Buck's Row. His patrol would be in a clockwise direction.

The total distance (in yards) is 2,297.4 (2100.735 metres), which works out to about 2.6 miles per hour (76.7 y/min) patrol speed if it takes him 30 minutes as testified. That's a bit slower than the average walking speed, which to me makes sense. If PC Neil finds Nichols at about the same time that Cross/Paul meet PC Mizen (as per the testimonies I believe), and given it appears to take about 3 minutes for Cross/Paul to cover the distance from Nichols to PC Mizen (they're estimated walking speed is 3.6 mph, a bit faster than average walking speed, which makes sense as they are late for work), then if we backtrack PC Neil 3 minutes from finding Nichols he would be around the red line, going towards Buck's Row.

Cross/Lechmere and Paul would be passed Queen Anne Street before he makes the bend, so neither would see the other, and when Neil makes it to Buck's Row and turns east, Cross/Lechmere and Paul would be turning north on Baker's Row. This starts to make more sense to me as it seemed almost impossible for Cross/Lechmere and Paul to have come from Nichols to PC Mizen and not cross paths with PC Neil, if he just came up Baker's Row and turned into Buck's Row and just went east. Those northern streets put him "out of the way" while Lechmere/Cross pass through.

It also means, that JtR could have seen PC Neil come up and turn up Thomas Street, long before either Cross/Lechmere or Paul enter Buck's Row. JtR then might have fled east, rather than west if that were the case. Mind you, knowing PC Neil has just gone north, he might dash passed heading west figuring he's got time before PC Neil's return. Hard to say as anything is possible.

Oh, and remember, this is all assuming the newspaper report of the beat is accurate, that I've not missed anything, and all other such cautions.

- Jeff

one further possibility Jeff is that he Does not enter Thomas street from Bucks Row/whites Row, But the East west section of it from Bakers Row, which is also consistent with the Echo and the timing can also be made to work.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Yah, I'm trying to work out the nitty gritty, and not quite sure how to fit that in. I've been thinking alone 3 general lines:

1) the "from Thomas-street to Brady street" is just to indicate direction of travel only (which fits what I've got). I don't like this, though, as Baker's Row is the more
"main" street to use as a direction marker, etc. and it feels like dismissing the testimony out of hand. I would rather explore other options first to see if something sensible can be made of it.

2) I've got the detail of the beat wrong (probably) and he goes up and down Thomas street, then over to Queen Anne and and down it, but he spotted the body before going up Queen Anne. Not sure I'm happy with that as Polly's body is described as being in the dark and hard to see from a distance, but that's by Cross/Lechmere who's not on patrol but walking to work. Maybe it was more visible to PC Neil as he's looking for things out of the ordinary?

3) Another way I could have the beat wrong is that upon reaching the "Buck's Row-Queen Anne" intersection he then returns up Queen Anne back over to Thomas, and then back down to Buck's Row. That way, all portions of those northern streets are covered twice (both sides of the street) and he covers the section of Buck's Row I've left not covered. That adds another 165.8 yards (151.640 metres), which would make his patrol speed 2.8 mph, again, slightly below average walking speed. That's sort of my current favorite option, but I may have overlooked other options. If we go with that, then rather being at the red line, he's would now be just starting to head West on the cross street between Queen Anne Street And Thomas (which, funnily enough, is called Cross Street). But, that really starts threading the needle as he's going to reach the other end of Cross Street turn south on Thomas and reach Buck's Row in 1 minute, and Cross/Lechmere will only have reached the end of Queen Anne Street. However, given the margin of error in the timings, that's actually pretty close. If Cross/Lechmere leave a minute earlier, they end up passed Thomas and almost out of Buck's Row before PC Neil re-emerges out of Thomas and into Buck's Row again.

Happy to get some suggestions. Obviously, there is the possibility the newspaper has the beat wrong, but again, I would rather not dismiss something if it actually does make sense.

- Jeff

Jeff,

the body would be impossible to see until he got past the Board School, certainly not possible from Queen Anne or Thomas.



If you hang on a week, all the options are clearly covered. Possible positions for the carmen and Neil are covered in great detail.

When the carmen leave the body, assuming they are walking at about 3.5mph and he at 2.5, the closest he is to the body, without being seen is around 3 minutes.

if you take the shorter suggested beats, the gap gets longer not shorter oddly enough.


if the speeds vary and they are walking faster it comes down by a few seconds.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Hello Jeff,

Neil entered Bucks Row from Thomas St.

"He deposed that on Friday morning, at a quarter to four o'clock, he was going down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, from Thomas-street to Brady-street."

that could depend on how you read it Dusty, on where the paper believed Bucks Row started, but it probably does mean he entered at Thomas St, so i have allowed for that too, doubling back to thomas street, via cross street, or simply excluding Queen Ann.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Ok, based on a story in The Echo (Sept 21, 1888; Thanks for the pointer Steve!), I've traced out what appears to be PC Neil's beat. It's described like this:

...the third constable would commence at Brady street, cover Whitechapel road, Baker's row, Thomas street, Queen Anne street, and Buck's row, to Brady street, and all the interior, this consisting of about ten streets, courts, passage, &c....

So, I've traced around those streets and up and back down "all the interior" streets and passages. I've made one or two judgement calls, such as only the N-S bit of Thomas Street, as another PC in Baker's Row I'm assuming would do the E-W portion, and I'm assuming he doesn't go all the way back down Thomas but cuts over to Queen Anne Street, does that, then back to Buck's Row. His patrol would be in a clockwise direction.

The total distance (in yards) is 2,297.4 (2100.735 metres), which works out to about 2.6 miles per hour (76.7 y/min) patrol speed if it takes him 30 minutes as testified. That's a bit slower than the average walking speed, which to me makes sense. If PC Neil finds Nichols at about the same time that Cross/Paul meet PC Mizen (as per the testimonies I believe), and given it appears to take about 3 minutes for Cross/Paul to cover the distance from Nichols to PC Mizen (they're estimated walking speed is 3.6 mph, a bit faster than average walking speed, which makes sense as they are late for work), then if we backtrack PC Neil 3 minutes from finding Nichols he would be around the red line, going towards Buck's Row.

Cross/Lechmere and Paul would be passed Queen Anne Street before he makes the bend, so neither would see the other, and when Neil makes it to Buck's Row and turns east, Cross/Lechmere and Paul would be turning north on Baker's Row. This starts to make more sense to me as it seemed almost impossible for Cross/Lechmere and Paul to have come from Nichols to PC Mizen and not cross paths with PC Neil, if he just came up Baker's Row and turned into Buck's Row and just went east. Those northern streets put him "out of the way" while Lechmere/Cross pass through.

It also means, that JtR could have seen PC Neil come up and turn up Thomas Street, long before either Cross/Lechmere or Paul enter Buck's Row. JtR then might have fled east, rather than west if that were the case. Mind you, knowing PC Neil has just gone north, he might dash passed heading west figuring he's got time before PC Neil's return. Hard to say as anything is possible.

Oh, and remember, this is all assuming the newspaper report of the beat is accurate, that I've not missed anything, and all other such cautions.

- Jeff

You will find lots of maps like that and very similar debate in my work Jeff, great minds and such .

i have offered all the routes that have been suggested over the years, i make a choice but its open to debate.

the police code says an average walking speed of 2.5mph, so no issue with 2.6.


Steve

[drstrange169]

I tend to go with Lloyd's as the other papers also say,

" I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway ... "

[JeffHamm]

Yes it's complicated!

"I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street"
Morning Advertiser/Times/Evening Standard/Daily Telegraph and others

" I was on the left hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street."
Lloyd's Newspaper

Yes. If the majority are correct, then it depends upon which street he's referencing, Buck's Row or Thomas. Let's say, for arguments sake, he first skips Thomas, does Queen Anne Street up the far side, back down, through Cross, up Thomas, turns around and back down Thomas to Buck's Row, that would put him on the right hand side of Thomas, suggesting he spotted the body from there. That leads to the question of why he didn't see it when he entered Queen Anne Street (again, presuming this new option of the route is correct). As that journey would take about 6 minutes, and Eddowes, who was more extensively mutilated, was estimated to require 5, we have opportunity for the murder to be happening in that time window. (pure speculation; the alternative, of course, is that he just didn't notice her the first time, but why he does this time from a further distance I can't say as it's clearly less probable).

Or, he may have simply mis-spoke and was referring to the left side of Buck's Row despite saying right, and the majority quote him and Lloyds corrected it.

Or, when he goes up Buck's Row he's crossed to the school side of the street and he's on the right side there when he's now close enough to spot her, and the Thomas-Buck's Row reference is indicating the direction and the last street he exited to get into Buck's Row. (making the above adjustment to the beat maybe the more likely one?).

It gets finicky, and unfortunately, right at the critical portion of the beat.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

Yes it's complicated!

"I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street"
Morning Advertiser/Times/Evening Standard/Daily Telegraph and others

" I was on the left hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street."
Lloyd's Newspaper

[JeffHamm]

Hello Jeff,

Neil entered Bucks Row from Thomas St.

"He deposed that on Friday morning, at a quarter to four o'clock, he was going down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, from Thomas-street to Brady-street."

Yah, I'm trying to work out the nitty gritty, and not quite sure how to fit that in. I've been thinking alone 3 general lines:

1) the "from Thomas-street to Brady street" is just to indicate direction of travel only (which fits what I've got). I don't like this, though, as Baker's Row is the more
"main" street to use as a direction marker, etc. and it feels like dismissing the testimony out of hand. I would rather explore other options first to see if something sensible can be made of it.

2) I've got the detail of the beat wrong (probably) and he goes up and down Thomas street, then over to Queen Anne and and down it, but he spotted the body before going up Queen Anne. Not sure I'm happy with that as Polly's body is described as being in the dark and hard to see from a distance, but that's by Cross/Lechmere who's not on patrol but walking to work. Maybe it was more visible to PC Neil as he's looking for things out of the ordinary?

3) Another way I could have the beat wrong is that upon reaching the "Buck's Row-Queen Anne" intersection he then returns up Queen Anne back over to Thomas, and then back down to Buck's Row. That way, all portions of those northern streets are covered twice (both sides of the street) and he covers the section of Buck's Row I've left not covered. That adds another 165.8 yards (151.640 metres), which would make his patrol speed 2.8 mph, again, slightly below average walking speed. That's sort of my current favorite option, but I may have overlooked other options. If we go with that, then rather being at the red line, he's would now be just starting to head West on the cross street between Queen Anne Street And Thomas (which, funnily enough, is called Cross Street). But, that really starts threading the needle as he's going to reach the other end of Cross Street turn south on Thomas and reach Buck's Row in 1 minute, and Cross/Lechmere will only have reached the end of Queen Anne Street. However, given the margin of error in the timings, that's actually pretty close. If Cross/Lechmere leave a minute earlier, they end up passed Thomas and almost out of Buck's Row before PC Neil re-emerges out of Thomas and into Buck's Row again.

Happy to get some suggestions. Obviously, there is the possibility the newspaper has the beat wrong, but again, I would rather not dismiss something if it actually does make sense.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

Hello Jeff,

Neil entered Bucks Row from Thomas St.

"He deposed that on Friday morning, at a quarter to four o'clock, he was going down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, from Thomas-street to Brady-street."

[JeffHamm]

Ok, based on a story in The Echo (Sept 21, 1888; Thanks for the pointer Steve!), I've traced out what appears to be PC Neil's beat. It's described like this:

...the third constable would commence at Brady street, cover Whitechapel road, Baker's row, Thomas street, Queen Anne street, and Buck's row, to Brady street, and all the interior, this consisting of about ten streets, courts, passage, &c....

So, I've traced around those streets and up and back down "all the interior" streets and passages. I've made one or two judgement calls, such as only the N-S bit of Thomas Street, as another PC in Baker's Row I'm assuming would do the E-W portion, and I'm assuming he doesn't go all the way back down Thomas but cuts over to Queen Anne Street, does that, then back to Buck's Row. His patrol would be in a clockwise direction.

The total distance (in yards) is 2,297.4 (2100.735 metres), which works out to about 2.6 miles per hour (76.7 y/min) patrol speed if it takes him 30 minutes as testified. That's a bit slower than the average walking speed, which to me makes sense. If PC Neil finds Nichols at about the same time that Cross/Paul meet PC Mizen (as per the testimonies I believe), and given it appears to take about 3 minutes for Cross/Paul to cover the distance from Nichols to PC Mizen (they're estimated walking speed is 3.6 mph, a bit faster than average walking speed, which makes sense as they are late for work), then if we backtrack PC Neil 3 minutes from finding Nichols he would be around the red line, going towards Buck's Row.

Cross/Lechmere and Paul would be passed Queen Anne Street before he makes the bend, so neither would see the other, and when Neil makes it to Buck's Row and turns east, Cross/Lechmere and Paul would be turning north on Baker's Row. This starts to make more sense to me as it seemed almost impossible for Cross/Lechmere and Paul to have come from Nichols to PC Mizen and not cross paths with PC Neil, if he just came up Baker's Row and turned into Buck's Row and just went east. Those northern streets put him "out of the way" while Lechmere/Cross pass through.

It also means, that JtR could have seen PC Neil come up and turn up Thomas Street, long before either Cross/Lechmere or Paul enter Buck's Row. JtR then might have fled east, rather than west if that were the case. Mind you, knowing PC Neil has just gone north, he might dash passed heading west figuring he's got time before PC Neil's return. Hard to say as anything is possible.

Oh, and remember, this is all assuming the newspaper report of the beat is accurate, that I've not missed anything, and all other such cautions.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

Just reading PC Neil's testimony (as reported in The Times, Sept 3, 1888), where it states " ... Witness then heard a constable passing Brady-street, and he called to him. Witness said to him, "Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn." Seeing another constable in Baker's-row, witness despatched him for the ambulance. ...", the first being PC Thain, the 2nd being PC Mizen.

It just occurred to me, we know PC Neil became aware of PC Thain at the end of Brady Street as he passed, so JtR, who would also be on alert, should likewise have been aware of Cross/Lechmere when he entered Brady Street (on the assumption that JtR was even still there of course), and so easily leave the scene. Cross/Lechmere isn't on alert, so would have no reason to take notice of someone down the street in the dark heading away from him.

Of course, that also suggests that if Cross/Lechmere were JtR he decided to hang around when Paul entered from Brady street as well (and not just when he was 30 =- 40 yards away), which negates any argument that Cross/Lechmere as JtR didn't have an option to flee (neither does 30-40 yards prevent that option, but still).

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Jeff

Yes the graphics are very impressive.
And while we can still not be 100% certain of the beats in J Division we have the testimony of Neil himself , which includes Bakers Row, and a press article, The echo 21st Sept which seems too detailed to be completely invention.

Ah, while I know the press is not the best source, if it's all we have, I might just have a play with that. Sigh, looking at old code puts the lie to the belief that "code is self explanatory and does not require comments." I don't know if I should thank you with a pint, or pour it over you! ha ha. Much obliged, he says knowing the answer.

On the distances we are close enough to each other to make little difference.

Steve

Yah, well, objective things are easy to agree upon (or at least, should be!). I think, though, in all seriousness, that in an area with few facts to work with, the more that can be put together the better. It's the data that constrains our unbounded creativity.

- Jeff

[Patrick S]

And how would he NOT have misled them by committing that perjury?

Do you EVER think before typing?

I really cannot keep this up, I am feeling nauseated. Maybe tomorrow. But maybe not you.

I'd feel nauseated too if I preached a thing as if it were simple and plain, easily understood, logical and sound... and NO ONE else looking at the same information felt likewise. Not even remotely. This should tell you something.

[Patrick S]

That would be in post 287, where you quoted me and replied like this:

(my words) >> ... Dr Strange must prove that Mizen lied and/or misled for his view to be considered?<<

(your answer) The newspaper reports prove that that was the case, I don't need to prove anything, it's there for all to read.

I now realize that you said lied or MISLED, and so you have sort of a point for once.

Not that it means anything much. Because the newspaper reports do not prove that Mizen either lied or misled at all.

They prove that he did not mention Paul before Baxter asked about him, that's all. And if Paul did not partake in the discussion at all, and if he was not even close at it took place, then why should Mizen mention him? More pertinently, how do we know that he would not mention hem later in his testimony? We will never find out, since Baxter got ahead of any such measure.

The REAL focus should not lie on any speculative idea that Mizen must have lied or misled about it, it should lie ion exactly WHY he did not mention Paul before he was asked about him. And on that score, my suggestion that Paul was not partaking verbally or physically in the discussion becomes a very useful bid.

Now DO try and employ a less foul way of addressing your opponents - it will make for a better atmosphere and maybe somebody will actually listen to you. If you don't shape up, I won't be one of them, though.

Shape up or you'll be put on the naughty list. Thus, you won't be treated to Christer's insults and abuse... as he demands respect, deference, and hero worship. Take it from me... it ain't half bad.

[Patrick S]

Anything that is consistent with innocence is a good indicator of innocence. That was the exact thing you were trying to lead on, remember?

And no, it was not and could never be consistent with innocence to disagree with a PC the way Lechmere did.

So.. if a PC is mistaken or not truthful and one disagrees with him - even if that disagreement is corroborated by a complete stranger - then, what, one is likely guilty of some crime in that this behavior is "never consistent with innocence"? Well, then Robert Paul must be closely looked at. His "exact time" disagrees with Mizen's. And, as we now know "it was not and could never be consistent with innocence to disagree with a PC".