The Nature of Evidence

[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.

[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, Iīm 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, isnīt it?

[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]

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.

[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

[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]

Hereīs 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]

In short, Steve:

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

Iīm 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 didnīt - 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

[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).

[Fisherman]

Oops. Sorry, Fish.

Thatīs 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.

Itīs confusing, to say the least.

[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.

[Sam Flynn]

We are not talking of Lechmere, Gareth, we are talking of Neil.

Oops. Sorry, Fish.

[Fisherman]

Hereīs 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.

[Fisherman]

In short, Steve:

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

Iīm 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?

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.

And it seems to me that the difference WAS one of approaching the evidence or not. I did and you didnīt - 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.

[Fisherman]

Strongly suggests, in fact. Didn't both he and Paul walk across to the body also?

We are not talking of Lechmere, Gareth, we are talking of Neil.