Consciousness of Guilt: Buck's Row

[Pierre]

I came back to say what a hypocrite you really are. You have the cheek and the audacity to pass comment on the results of my research as being nothing more than self opinions, and here you are doing the very self same thing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You donīt know anything about Steveīs research yet, his sources and interpretations, so I suggest you wait before you accuse him.

Regards, Pierre

[Sam Flynn]

Neither Neil nor Kirby said anything about seeing anybody in Bucks Row around 3.30, and certainly, Neil would not have been there at that time.

Unless they themselves (one or both) were the selfsame folk who traversed Bucks Row at approximately that time, especially if the journalist miscalculated or misheard[*].


[* It does happen, Fish, and I'm not pursuing a vendetta against the Lancet, I promise you. Far from it; I used to be a subscriber.]

[Trevor Marriott]

You have no idea on what information Steve bases his thinking, and accordingly no reason to criticize it. He has been very clear about how he set out to contact knowledgeable/professional people in the errand, and until we know how he went about his business, we have no right to criticize or applaud him.

Go away, Trevor.

I have every right when he accuses me, and does the self same thing himself. What are his credentials that make him any more of an expert than the experts. He like anyone else is entitled to give their opinions but not at the expense of slagging another off for purportedly doing the same. He like you is just another armchair detective, both of you with no credentials, at least I have a proven track record.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

At the moment, I am sticking with throat, and i think i can justify it from a medical and scientific viewpoint.

We my not agree I know, but am sure if i can provide argument, you will look at it.


However I am not ready to be conclusive on it, but would say 75% plus.

once i have concluded i will let you know.


Steve

Fair enough. I will have a question or two for you. Maybe even three... A question: When you say " I have No doubt at all the murder cut occurred within at most 3-4 minutes of Paul's arrival", can I take it "the murder cut" is the neck cut?

[Elamarna]

...and probably closer than so in time.

Okay, Steve, if I can ask: where do you stand on the question of whether the neck or the abdomen was cut first?

At the moment, I am sticking with throat, and i think i can justify it from a medical and scientific viewpoint.

We my not agree I know, but am sure if i can provide argument, you will look at it.


However I am not ready to be conclusive on it, but would say 75% plus.

once i have concluded i will let you know.


Steve

[Fisherman]

PC Neil stated that he had passed the spot "not more than half an hour" before the body was found [The Times, 3rd September 1888] and I seem to recall that Sgt Kirby had passed down Bucks Row between sometime between 3:15 and 3:40 (frustratingly, I can't find the reference). Thain himself, of course, confirmed that he passed the corner of Bucks Row every half hour on his beat.

What I have in mind is this passage from the inquest, Thain speaking:
By the Coroner: There were one or two working men going down Brady-street shortly before I was called by Neale.

Thain does however not state that the men traversed Bucks Row, but itīs the closest match I can find. Neither Neil nor Kirby said anything about seeing anybody in Bucks Row around 3.30, and certainly, Neil would not have been there at that time.

It also seems that the men Thain saw would have been there just the odd minute before 3.45, since Thain was in Brady Street himself at the stage.

[Elamarna]

I came back to say what a hypocrite you really are. You have the cheek and the audacity to pass comment on the results of my research as being nothing more than self opinions, and here you are doing the very self same thing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

My view is based on the expert comments of Payne-James and Biggs, whom you seem to believe disagree, they are in fact talking about different things, and BOTH views are important in this case.
In addition it is backed by my own professional experience and knowledge,
.
In case you missed it i said "I HAVE NO DOUBT" thats an opinion. i am not claiming it as fact at this point.


To launch what is no more than a personal attack, with no understanding of what I am talking about and apparently backed by some personal animosity is a truly sad way to behave.


But carry on my Dear Trevor, it just exposes the truth about you, more than I ever could.

have fun


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

In an exchange about the Chapman murder, I read up on the Lancet of the 29 of September and found this:

"...it was given in evidence that only a quarter of an hour before the discovery of the body the row had been traversed by others."

So it seems that there was evidence of somebody traversing Bucks Row at around 3.30. Does anybody know who it refers to? I can only think of the two working men reported by Thain as having passed down Brady Street

PC Neil stated that he had passed the spot "not more than half an hour" before the body was found [The Times, 3rd September 1888] and I seem to recall that Sgt Kirby had passed down Bucks Row between sometime between 3:15 and 3:40 (frustratingly, I can't find the reference). Thain himself, of course, confirmed that he passed the corner of Bucks Row every half hour on his beat.

[Fisherman]

I came back to say what a hypocrite you really are. You have the cheek and the audacity to pass comment on the results of my research as being nothing more than self opinions, and here you are doing the very self same thing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You have no idea on what information Steve bases his thinking, and accordingly no reason to criticize it. He has been very clear about how he set out to contact knowledgeable/professional people in the errand, and until we know how he went about his business, we have no right to criticize or applaud him.

Go away, Trevor.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

seemed to have missed thread first time round apart from one post on Pierre.

Anyway, that inf is useful, i had already found it by the way, I have No doubt at all the murder cut occurred within at most 3-4 minutes of Paul's arrival.

Steve

...and probably closer than so in time.

Okay, Steve, if I can ask: where do you stand on the question of whether the neck or the abdomen was cut first?

[Trevor Marriott]

Anyway, that inf is useful, i had already found it by the way, I have No doubt at all the murder cut occurred within at most 3-4 minutes of Paul's arrival.
Steve

I came back to say what a hypocrite you really are. You have the cheek and the audacity to pass comment on the results of my research as being nothing more than self opinions, and here you are doing the very self same thing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

In an exchange about the Chapman murder, I read up on the Lancet of the 29 of September and found this:

"The similarity between the injuries inflicted in the case and those upon the woman Nicholls, whose body was found in Buck's-row a few days before, gave from the the first the idea that they were the work of the same hand. But in the Buck's-row case the mutilation did not extend so far, and there was no portion of the body missing. Again, this is explained by those who think the possession of the uterus was the sole motive, by assuming that the miscreant had not time to complete his design in the Buck's-row case, and it was given in evidence that only a quarter of an hour before the discovery of the body the row had been traversed by others."

So it seems that there was evidence of somebody traversing Bucks Row at around 3.30. Does anybody know who it refers to? I can only think of the two working men reported by Thain as having passed down Brady Street shortly before he was called upon by Neil.
It seems to narrow down the time window in which the killer worked at any rate, if correct.
As an aside, it is interesting to see how on the 29:th, it was believed by many that the uterus alone was the target of the killer. Logical enough, of course, but there were lessons to be learnt...

Hi Fish,

seemed to have missed thread first time round apart from one post on Pierre.

Anyway, that inf is useful, i had already found it by the way, I have No doubt at all the murder cut occurred within at most 3-4 minutes of Paul's arrival.

Steve

[Fisherman]

In an exchange about the Chapman murder, I read up on the Lancet of the 29 of September and found this:

"The similarity between the injuries inflicted in the case and those upon the woman Nicholls, whose body was found in Buck's-row a few days before, gave from the the first the idea that they were the work of the same hand. But in the Buck's-row case the mutilation did not extend so far, and there was no portion of the body missing. Again, this is explained by those who think the possession of the uterus was the sole motive, by assuming that the miscreant had not time to complete his design in the Buck's-row case, and it was given in evidence that only a quarter of an hour before the discovery of the body the row had been traversed by others."

So it seems that there was evidence of somebody traversing Bucks Row at around 3.30. Does anybody know who it refers to? I can only think of the two working men reported by Thain as having passed down Brady Street shortly before he was called upon by Neil.
It seems to narrow down the time window in which the killer worked at any rate, if correct.
As an aside, it is interesting to see how on the 29:th, it was believed by many that the uterus alone was the target of the killer. Logical enough, of course, but there were lessons to be learnt...

[Columbo]

Following on from Patrick's excellent post how would Lechmere know how Pc Mizen would have reacted ? For all he knew he could have followed him and Paul back to Polly Ann , found it suspicious that he was with the body when Paul arrived, [ he could even have had some experience of a murder scene and realized that Polly was not long dead ] and checked his clothing, maybe even attempted to apprehend him.
He could explain the blood on his hands by saying he was feeling for a pulse, perhaps even her heart but what about the knife ? And if he had wiped the knife wouldn't there be a bloodstained handkerchief for instance.
Also how was lechmere not to know that someone, say looking out of a window, [weren't there people living nearby] had not observed him talking to Polly just before the murder ?
Jack took chances, but that many ?

Hi Darryl,

yep, Fisherman's right. Jack took alot of chances.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Darryl Kenyon: Following on from Patrick's excellent post how would Lechmere know how Pc Mizen would have reacted ? For all he knew he could have followed him and Paul back to Polly Ann , found it suspicious that he was with the body when Paul arrived, [ he could even have had some experience of a murder scene and realized that Polly was not long dead ] and checked his clothing, maybe even attempted to apprehend him.

Indeed he SHOULD have detained Lechmere and Paul if he had been informed that the carmen were the finders and that Lechmere had been alone with the body. And he SHOULD have taken their names and addresses, no doubt about it - it was possibly a case of murder, and you do NOT let people go in such a case!
But what if he was NOT informed about all of this? What if Mizen told the truth, and he was told that the carmen were sent by a fellow PC who had the situation in hand?
What then? How does that change the game? Could it explain why the names were NOT taken, why the carmen were NOT detained? Is it even the by far most plausible explanation?

He could explain the blood on his hands...

What blood on his hands? How do you know it was there? Jason Payne-James tells us that he need not have had any blood at all on his person.

...by saying he was feeling for a pulse, perhaps even her heart but what about the knife ?

If he examined Nichols to get an alibi, one must accept that he may have nourished the hope to be able to rid himself of the weapon if needed.

And if he had wiped the knife wouldn't there be a bloodstained handkerchief for instance.

Yes, but did he? And if he did, then he took the handkerchief along with him.

Also how was lechmere not to know that someone, say looking out of a window, [weren't there people living nearby] had not observed him talking to Polly just before the murder ?

He could not possibly know that. The same applies for each and every murder. Very apparently, that did NOT stop the killer. Are we to deduce that it would stop Lechmere, but not the killer - that this proves that they were probably different men?

Jack took chances, but that many ?

Yes, absolutely. If there is something we can be sure of, then that is that this killer was not afraid of taking risks. In "The Definitive Story", a much acclaimed documentary made by genuine Ripperologists of great reputation and fame (but nevertheless screws up the Nichols murder beyond recognition, brrrr), a psychologist says that there is good reason to believe that the killer did not care all that much about whether he was caught or not. That could well be true.