The Nature of Evidence

[Fisherman]

As for the "I went across", I think it is evident that the papers have Neil on the southern side of the street, like for example the Daily Telegraph:

"I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street."

The Morning Advertiser:

"I was on the right hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street."

And, as has been pointed out, the Times:

" He was walking along the right-hand side of the street when he noticed a figure lying in the street. "

Lloyds Weekly differs:

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

... but we can be abslutely certain that Neil did not say that he was EITHER on the right or the left side of the street, and so Lloyds must be ruled out as being the one and only paper that contradicts the others.

This means us with Neil saying that he "went across", which becomes an anomaly on the surface of things. However, he does not say that he went across the street, he only says he went across. Can he have meant that he simply took a step to the side to take a closer look, or something such? That he leant in over her? That he crossed over her to be able to see what had happened?

I have no idea, and I do not have the command of the British language it would take, but it seems to me that it is a perhaps vaguer distinction than the very straight-forward "I was walking on the right-hand side of the street", which leaves precious little to debate about.

[Fisherman]

Oops. Sorry, Fish.

That´s just fine, Gareth, no problems at all. The funny thing is that we have a PC who says he was on the right-hand side of the street, but who makes a remark that seems to place him on the opposite side, whereas we have a carman who claims to have been on the left-hand side of the street, but where I suspect he was actually on the other side.

It´s confusing, to say the least.

[David Orsam]

Are we sure that the reports in Lloyds, Telegraph, Morning Advertiser, Evening Standard and Illustrated Police News were not all written by the same journalist?

I haven't spent much time on it but they all look virtually identical to me.

Lloyds would have been first to publish, and "left side" might have been changed to "right side" in the copy supplied to the other newspapers for some reason.

I wouldn't even want to rule out the idea that the Times report is based on the same report but re-written to the third person (albeit that Kirby's name is spelt incorrectly in that report but not in the others).

[Elamarna]

In short, Steve:

I know that the Echo snippet comes from an article - most snippets do.

I´m sure it has a bearing on Thain, just as you say - but I was not discussing Thain. I was discussing from whence Neil came.

In that particular context, a snippet of the article was what you used to make your point, and that was why I said that you used a snippet to make your point.

I find it kind of odd that you should press the point that your quotation came from an article and not from a snippet. I never said it did - I said a snippet from the article was what you used to make the point that Neil could have come from Queen Anne Street.

But overall - is it not kind of ridiculous to quibble over THAT?

The impression was that it was just a small comment in the Echo, obviously it was not, you agree therefore no issue

Likewise, is it not kind of ridiculous to say that it is not abut how we approach the evidence but about how we interpret it?

In my world, these two things are basically the same.

We see it differently,

And it seems to me that the difference WAS one of approaching the evidence or not. I did and you didn´t - you left out the Evening News part of the evidence.


That is not interpreting it. It is omitting to mention it.

There simply has to be better things to argue about. Or even debate. I hope you agree with that.

What is in the Evening News I have missed the the editions of the 1st and the 3rd seem to not touch on the issue. The 31st edition gives no addition information to that already quoted.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Here´s a better thing to debate. The Daily News reinforces what the Evening News said:
"Police constable John Neil 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."

From Thomas Street to Brady Street. No mentioning of any tour into Queen Anne Street.

Yes that is the direction. Bucks Row starts at Thomas street.

I am somewhat at a loss to understand this approach when it has been made clear that an entry from either street is possible.
The apparent refusal to accept this is somewhat baffling.


Steve

[Elamarna]

As for the "I went across", I think it is evident that the papers have Neil on the southern side of the street, like for example the Daily Telegraph:

"I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street."

The Morning Advertiser:

"I was on the right hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street."

And, as has been pointed out, the Times:

" He was walking along the right-hand side of the street when he noticed a figure lying in the street. "

Lloyds Weekly differs:

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

... but we can be abslutely certain that Neil did not say that he was EITHER on the right or the left side of the street, and so Lloyds must be ruled out as being the one and only paper that contradicts the others.

That would be the norm I agree, and given that I do not feeling which side he is on gives an indication of where he came from I would happily accept such if it were not for the "I went across" comment.

This means us with Neil saying that he "went across", which becomes an anomaly on the surface of things. However, he does not say that he went across the street, he only says he went across. Can he have meant that he simply took a step to the side to take a closer look, or something such? That he leant in over her? That he crossed over her to be able to see what had happened?

I have no idea, and I do not have the command of the British language it would take, but it seems to me that it is a perhaps vaguer distinction than the very straight-forward "I was walking on the right-hand side of the street", which leaves precious little to debate about.

It is an anomaly I agree. It does raise a question which we cannot simply ignore. hHowever owever I do not see that walking on one side or the other indicates the point of entry into Bucks Row..

Steve

[Elamarna]

Having checked I can see where Fisherman got the view of "came upon her" from.
Phrases like it are used in general reports of the murder from the following sources:

Morning advertiser 1st.
The Times 1st and 3rd.
Daily News 1st and 3rd.

None of these are reports of the inquest. The term appears to be that of the reporters not Neil. However such does explain Fisherman's recollection.

One maybe interesting point arising from today's posts is that searching for particular quotes relating to Bucks Row has been easy today. The documents which make up part 2 of the Bucks Row Project are fully searchable and all in one place.
If nothing else this should make research easier for others in the future.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Lloyds would have been first to publish, and "left side" might have been changed to "right side" in the copy supplied to the other newspapers for some reason.

The odd thing is that the change seemingly went the illogical way. If Lloyds had had it "the right-hand side" and the subsequent paper reports had changed that to "the left-hand side" on account of the "went across" thing, it would make for a neat explanation. As it stands, what follows is confusion.

[Fisherman]

The impression was that it was just a small comment in the Echo, obviously it was not, you agree therefore no issue




We see it differently,



What is in the Evening News I have missed the the editions of the 1st and the 3rd seem to not touch on the issue. The 31st edition gives no addition information to that already quoted.

Steve

Never mind, Steve - the one and only thing I am trying to get across here is that quibbling over when I say that a snippet is a snippet and not recognizing that my saying that we have a different approach to the evidence is spot on when I quote how the Evening News said that it was Thomas Street Neil came from and you do not touch that all-important part of the evidence with a ten-foot pole, are things that do not honour any meaningful debate.

We can do better, we SHOULD do better and we owe it to ourselves to do so. That is the gist of what I am trying to get across.

[Fisherman]

Yes that is the direction. Bucks Row starts at Thomas street.

I am somewhat at a loss to understand this approach when it has been made clear that an entry from either street is possible.
The apparent refusal to accept this is somewhat baffling.


Steve

You seem baffled by many things, Steve.

Me, I´m baffled by why any person would say that Neil was walking down Bucks Row from Thomas Street to Brady Street, when it would suffice tp say that he walked it eastwards.
To me, what is said here is that Neil came into Bucks Row from Thomas Street and walked towards Brady Street. It seems the site as such has made the same interpretation.

Not that I care very much by now. Baffling, isn´t it?

[Fisherman]

That would be the norm I agree, and given that I do not feeling which side he is on gives an indication of where he came from I would happily accept such if it were not for the "I went across" comment.




It is an anomaly I agree. It does raise a question which we cannot simply ignore. hHowever owever I do not see that walking on one side or the other indicates the point of entry into Bucks Row..

Steve

It does so to a degree, though - if you make a left turn into a street going eastwards, you are more likely to end up on the northern pavement than on the southern ditto.

Likely, that is.

[Elamarna]

Never mind, Steve - the one and only thing I am trying to get across here is that quibbling over when I say that a snippet is a snippet and not recognizing that my saying that we have a different approach to the evidence is spot on when I quote how the Evening News said that it was Thomas Street Neil came from and you do not touch that all-important part of the evidence with a ten-foot pole, are things that do not honour any meaningful debate.

We can do better, we SHOULD do better and we owe it to ourselves to do so. That is the gist of what I am trying to get across.

I agree we can all do better Fish, however to say I have not touched on the Evening News is a tad unfair.
The 31st edition and 1st both simply say "was on his beat in Bucks Row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel "

It does not say he came from there, to me it is simply giving the location: Bucks Row is off Thomas street, it starts there, and is in Whitechapel.
I also see it as a directional statement in that he is going from the Thomas street end.
I would view Bucks Row, Brady street as indication he was going in the other direction.
So I feel I did cover it in my posts.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: I agree we can all do better Fish, however to say I have not touched on the Evening News is a tad unfair.
The 31st edition and 1st both simply say "was on his beat in Bucks Row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel "

You did originally not mention it at all in your musings about Neil having arrived in Bucks Row from Queen Anne Street, which was why I am saying ... no, sod it - I really, really don´t care. All that counts is that we need to shape up when we quibble over matters of no importance at all.

It does not say he came from there, to me it is simply giving the location: Bucks Row is off Thomas street, it starts there, and is in Whitechapel.
I also see it as a directional statement in that he is going from the Thomas street end.
I would view Bucks Row, Brady street as indication he was going in the other direction.
So I feel I did cover it in my posts.

Lost interest. Sorry.

[Sam Flynn]

The odd thing is that the change seemingly went the illogical way. If Lloyds had had it "the right-hand side" and the subsequent paper reports had changed that to "the left-hand side" on account of the "went across" thing, it would make for a neat explanation. As it stands, what follows is confusion.

That's a particular problem with the newspaper reports surrounding the Tabram and Nichols cases: a paucity of reports, with few and sometimes confusing details. The press starts to get really interested after Nichols, so the quantity and quality of the reports improves dramatically. Not that the reportage on the later murders isn't fraught with holes and contradictions, of course, but at least the larger number of articles and official reports that survive give us a better chance of reconstructing the past.

[Elamarna]

It does so to a degree, though - if you make a left turn into a street going eastwards, you are more likely to end up on the northern pavement than on the southern ditto.

Likely, that is.

Depends on the layout of the street surely.
If you look at a map it seems much clearer.

If he enters from Thomas there are properties on the North but none on the South. Of course he will check the South side, but will possible be more on the Northern side, no matter if he enters North or South, and check the houses and other buildings there before maybe crossing back to Board School.
From there he may cross back North to do the first few buildings and gates on the North or stay on the Southern side.
And I contend that is very possible no matter which side he enters Bucks Row from.

The important issue for me are the length of the beat and the time it takes. According to Neil it is about 30 minutes. That fits very well with the Northern side of Bucks Row being included as per the Echo and suggests strongly that he enters from the North, not the South.

There is a large section on all the beats in part 3, mainly it is of academic interest I feel as it has little bearing on the case; I hope that I can convince you of the likelihood of the Northern entry. Time will tell.

Steve