The Nature of Evidence

[Elamarna]

But I was not "analyzing the case", was I? I was saying that when we from the north come into a street running in an east/westernly direction, and take a left turn, we will GENERALLY end up on the northern pavement.

I said that this was a more likely thing to happen.

And you answered that it depend on the layout of the street. Which is pof course of interest, but has nothing at all to do with the general rule and principle.

And now you claim that I do not want to look at the points raised...?

This is why I keep saying that we need to improve, Steve. It would be discourteous to say that YOU need to improve, but you may get the drift anyway?

Of course that is analysing the case. You are taking basic information and suggesting an outcome. It's analysis.
General rule and principle? That is the whole point we should not be apply general ideas to this given it is a specific location and event.

Glass houses and stones comes to mind

Steve

[Fisherman]

Interesting idea David.

Got me wondering if there is an earlier version than Lloyds account.

Yes indeed there is. Evening Post 1st which you transcribed and posted some time back:

"Police constable Neil said that on Friday evening at a quarter to four he was
proceeding down Buck’s-row Whitechapel, from Thomas-street, when he found
the body of the deceased. There was no-one about at the time. He went round
there half an hour previously, and met no one then. It was on the right hand side
of Buck’s-row he found the body lying upon the footway. "

Here we see the use of right hand side; however it refers to the position of the body not that of Neil.
Is it possible that this came to be given in later versions as "I" rather than "It"?

Just a thought.


Steve

It is certainly an interesting idea.

However, it is hard to make it dovetail with the other reports. Herlock says that it is just a difference of a single letter, but it is also a difference in the overall construction of the message.

If we look at the same thing from LLoyds Weekly, we can see that there are large structural differences, implicating that the two papers did not draw on the same source:

Evening News:

"Police constable Neil said that on Friday evening at a quarter to four he was
proceeding down Buck’s-row Whitechapel, from Thomas-street, when he found the body of the deceased. There was no-one about at the time. He went round there half an hour previously, and met no one then. It was on the right hand side of Buck’s-row he found the body lying upon the footway."

Lloyds:

John Neill, police-constable 97 J, was sworn, and said: Yesterday morning I was proceeding down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady-street. There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previous, and I saw no one then. I was on the left hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found the deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east.

It seems apparent to me that these are two different reports, coming from two different pens - but originating from the exact same inquest.

To me, this means that the problem with your suggestion is that it seems that the Evening News is the only paper that had this version, as far as we can tell. Therefore, for the other papers to all have misreported "It" as "I", we need to accept that only the Evening News got it correct, whereas all the others did not only get it wrong, but they also rearranged the order of the text.

And they were all at the same inquest.

The point you make is interesting and somewhat ingenuous, and I can totally see the appeal. But I find it very hard to believe that all the other papers made up a story where Neil spoke about which side he was walking on. The reporters took down what they heard, and again: they all heard the same thing, since they were at the same inquest.

And if we want to make the Evening News dovetail with the rest of the papers, it is very easy: Neil DID find the body on the right-hand side of the street. After all, that is all the article says. It expresses no view whatsoever about what side Neil was walking on.

Summing up, I command you for the suggestion, but weighing it all together, I think it must be discarded as it stands. I would love to see the wording from the Star and the Echo, if it is avaliable, though.

[Fisherman]

>>I can take part of how it is claimed that "leaving the spot to attract attention" is suddenly the same as being of interest ( a useful little leap of meanings there, Dusty!)<<

Sorry Fish, I've no idea what that sentence means.

I´m sure that´s correct.

[Fisherman]

General views on what is normal are not good enough to anaylise this case, one needs to get a fully specific understanding of the issues involved.
It's clear you do not wishing to look at the points raised.


Goodnight then


Steve

But I was not "analyzing the case", was I? I was saying that when we from the north come into a street running in an east/westernly direction, and take a left turn, we will GENERALLY end up on the northern pavement.

I said that this was a more likely thing to happen.

And you answered that it depend on the layout of the street. Which is pof course of interest, but has nothing at all to do with the general rule and principle.

And now you claim that I do not want to look at the points raised...?

This is why I keep saying that we need to improve, Steve. It would be discourteous to say that YOU need to improve, but you may get the drift anyway?

[drstrange169]

>>I can take part of how it is claimed that "leaving the spot to attract attention" is suddenly the same as being of interest ( a useful little leap of meanings there, Dusty!)<<

Sorry Fish, I've no idea what that sentence means.

[drstrange169]

>>Here we see the use of right hand side; however it refers to the position of the body not that of Neil.
Is it possible that this came to be given in later versions as "I" rather than "It"?<<

Excellent work Steve, probelm sovled. In chinese whispers it always pays to go back to the start.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Interesting idea David.

Got me wondering if there is an earlier version than Lloyds account.

Yes indeed there is. Evening Post 1st which you transcribed and posted some time back:

"Police constable Neil said that on Friday evening at a quarter to four he was
proceeding down Buck’s-row Whitechapel, from Thomas-street, when he found
the body of the deceased. There was no-one about at the time. He went round
there half an hour previously, and met no one then. It was on the right hand side
of Buck’s-row he found the body lying upon the footway. "

Here we see the use of right hand side; however it refers to the position of the body not that of Neil.
Is it possible that this came to be given in later versions as "I" rather than "It"?

Just a thought


Steve

That seems a reasonable possibility Steve. Just one letter difference!

Regards

Herlock

[Elamarna]

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).

Interesting idea David.

Got me wondering if there is an earlier version than Lloyds account.

Yes indeed there is. Evening Post 1st which you transcribed and posted some time back:

"Police constable Neil said that on Friday evening at a quarter to four he was
proceeding down Buck’s-row Whitechapel, from Thomas-street, when he found
the body of the deceased. There was no-one about at the time. He went round
there half an hour previously, and met no one then. It was on the right hand side
of Buck’s-row he found the body lying upon the footway. "

Here we see the use of right hand side; however it refers to the position of the body not that of Neil.
Is it possible that this came to be given in later versions as "I" rather than "It"?

Just a thought.


Steve

[Elamarna]

How hard can it be? If you come from the north down to a street running in an east-westernly direction, and take a left turn into that street, you need to cross the street to end up on the southern pavement. If you just turn the corner and walk on, you will do so on the northern pavement.

Whenever did this become rocket science? How can it be in any way hard to understand the underlying principles of this? Why would you introduce the layout of the street into a perfectly simple example like this?

I really don´t want or need any more of this, so I´m out for the moment being. Jesus!

General views on what is normal are not good enough to anaylise this case, one needs to get a fully specific understanding of the issues involved.
It's clear you do not wishing to look at the points raised.


Goodnight then


Steve

[Elamarna]

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.

I first raised the question of why you assumed Thomas street in post #159.
You gave an answer quoting Evening News 31st August post # 163 to which I replied in post # 167.
Today you raised the issue again and I repeated my points in post # 346.
To then suggest I have avoided discussing the Report is false.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Depends on the layout of the street surely.

Steve

How hard can it be? If you come from the north down to a street running in an east-westernly direction, and take a left turn into that street, you need to cross the street to end up on the southern pavement. If you just turn the corner and walk on, you will do so on the northern pavement.

Whenever did this become rocket science? How can it be in any way hard to understand the underlying principles of this? Why would you introduce the layout of the street into a perfectly simple example like this?

I really don´t want or need any more of this, so I´m out for the moment being. Jesus!

[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

[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.

[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.

[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