Consciousness of Guilt: Buck's Row

[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

[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 it´s 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]

...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]

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?

[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

[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.]

[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 don´t know anything about Steve´s research yet, his sources and interpretations, so I suggest you wait before you accuse him.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Go away.

[Fisherman]

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.]

Of course it happens. But mistakes are less common than getting it right, quite simply.
I don´t see you as the vindictive type, so I´ll take your word for how you are not plotting anything sinister against the Lancet.

[Elamarna]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor claim what ever you like, as opinion, as I did in that post, just don't present such as fact, and I will not say a word.

Its only when you insist that your view is the only possible answer that i say anything, that is not slagging off, that is putting forward the reasoned alternative view.


I made it clear in the op and my follow up post that it was MY view: "I have no doubt" were the words used, not there is no doubt or it is clear or anything to suggest it is an authoritative view.



I spent 35 years working in research, I have never claimed I am more expert than the "experts" you use .

However it is evident I am far more expert on matters of science and medicine than yourself. I am sure you are far more expert on law than me.


Someone appears to be suffering bruised ego issues.

cheers


steve

[Elamarna]

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?

At the moment yes, but that could still change, I mean the cut which was the cut which meant she would bleed out, be that abdomen or throat.

To be more precise, its the first major cut.

sorry cant be more precise at present .

ask anything you like and if I can answer I will

steve

[Sam Flynn]

Of course it happens. But mistakes are less common than getting it right, quite simply.

Not sure that's the case, especially with press deadlines to meet. Besides, there seems to be no other reference to this 3:30 "traversal" anywhere else, so perhaps the journalist really was thinking of either Kirby and/or Neil all along, and over-generalised the timings. It will be interesting, of course, if anything else turns up.

I don´t see you as the vindictive type, so I´ll take your word for how you are not plotting anything sinister against the Lancet.

Cheers, Fish

[Fisherman]

At the moment yes, but that could still change, I mean the cut which was the cut which meant she would bleed out, be that abdomen or throat.

To be more precise, its the first major cut.

sorry cant be more precise at present .

ask anything you like and if I can answer I will

steve

I´m fine for now, doing the math. If we work from a perspective where Paul arrived at 03.45 hours, then he will have walked the street down first for a minute, at least. That makes it 03.44. Lechmere was in place 30-40 yards before him, that another half a minute, 03.43.30. The cutting and covering up would have taken perhaps a further minute, taking us to 03.42.30.
You say three to four minutes at most, in your estimation. If three is the figure, then the killer got up and walked away when Lechmere was halfway down Bucks Row - IF it was somebody else than Lechmere that did the killing. If four minutes apply, then there is room for another killer - only just. If it was two minutes, then Lechmere killed Nichols.

I can´t help but to think that it seems you have full respect for the possibility that Charles Lechmere may have been the killer of Polly Nichols.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Not sure that's the case, especially with press deadlines to meet.

I am very sure, regardless of the deadlines. I´ve been ajournalist all my life, and much as I have seen blunders, they are extremely rare when comparing to how much is correct.

Besides, there seems to be no other reference to this 3:30 "traversal" anywhere else, so perhaps the journalist really was thinking of either Kirby and/or Neil all along, and over-generalised the timings. It will be interesting, of course, if anything else turns up.

He´s pretty clear, though: "... 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 he is not mistaking what he has heard, he is claiming that it was given in evidence by somebody.
As it stands, it seems it is a mistake of sorts, but it remains of interest.

Cheers, Fish

My pleasure!

[Sam Flynn]

He´s pretty clear, though: "... 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."

He might be clear, but it sadly doesn't mean he was accurate. On the other hand, my half-remembered idea of Sgt Kirby's "traversal" might be precisely what we're after; if only I could find the specific reference. I'm sure it's in one of my book-books* somehwere...

* "Book-books" are what I call books of the non-electronic variety. Lovely to look at, a pleasure to hold, but hellish difficult to search through.