The Nature of Evidence

[Pierre]

Queen Anne Street was treated as a certainty. It is not.

Thomas Street is mentioned in a number of reports, stating that Neil was walking down Bucks Row from that very street. Whether that was a mere pointing out of directions or a statement about from where he entered Bucks Row cannot be established, but at least there is something speaking for Thomas Street being the point of arrival in Bucks Row. Nothing in the reports anchor any belief that he came from Queen Anne Street.

I did not say that Thomas Street was a certainy. And it is not.

He could have come from either street, and he could have come from the south or the north.

That is my whole point - you may THINK he came from Queen Anne Street, and that is fine. But that´s as far as it goes.

Do you want to continue this painfully stupid and fruitless debate, or should we perhaps - as I keep suggesting - do something better?

I don´t believe it is stupid. I think Steve has some purpose discussing this.

Pierre

[Fisherman]

I see you actually miss the point of the post.

You said in post # 390

-" I only took up the debate because others seemed to try to make it a truth that Neil came from Queen Anne Street."

When I only raised Queen Ann Street in post # 159 saying exactly the same to You about Thomas street.


Steve

Queen Anne Street was treated as a certainty. It is not.

Thomas Street is mentioned in a number of reports, stating that Neil was walking down Bucks Row from that very street. Whether that was a mere pointing out of directions or a statement about from where he entered Bucks Row cannot be established, but at least there is something speaking for Thomas Street being the point of arrival in Bucks Row. Nothing in the reports anchor any belief that he came from Queen Anne Street.

I did not say that Thomas Street was a certainy. And it is not.

The post 159 you refer to contained only this about Thomas Street, you being the autor:

"Why do you assume he entered from Thomas street, while it may have been Queen Ann street is more likely."

That is not you criticizing me for presenting Thomas Street as a fact - it is you questioning why I assume that he came from Thomas Street, something there is a basis for suggesting, going by the articles. And then you go on to state that Queen Anne Street is more likely. Which is your idea, and you are welcome to it, but it is no fact.

He could have come from either street, and he could have come from the south or the north.

That is my whole point - you may THINK he came from Queen Anne Street, and that is fine. But that´s as far as it goes.

Do you want to continue this painfully stupid and fruitless debate, or should we perhaps - as I keep suggesting - do something better?

[Elamarna]

Queen Anne Street is not proposed or mentioned in any of the reports. Thomas Street is, and it is said that Neil walked Bucks Row from Thomas Street.

It makes it the better bid in my view, but as I just said to Frank, there is no way of being sure either way.

One point I will make but not press (since I have seen this kind of point pressed far too often) is that I think that Neil will have been asked to give his route in as detailed a fashion as possible, and that if he DID come down from Queen Anne Street, he would have said so and it would have been recorded by the press. However, as I said, I have seen the point "he would have said it, he would have done it" too many times to feel to confident about things. It´s just a feeling I have.

Is that clear enough? Or do we roll me in tar and feathers for having said that I prefer Thomas Street as the one he entered Bucks Row from?

I see you actually miss the point of the post.

You said in post # 390

-" I only took up the debate because others seemed to try to make it a truth that Neil came from Queen Anne Street."

When I only raised Queen Ann Street in post # 159 saying exactly the same to You about Thomas street.


Steve

[Fisherman]

And that is the issue that you believe we can apply general views and use those, I do not, we start from the general and then should apply the specifics. That you chose not to is your right of course.

However I am happy to stop here until I give my full view later.


Steve

When you say we start from the general, you acknowledge that I am correct, so thanks for that.

If you say that I do not apply the specifics, you are wrong.

[Fisherman]

How differently people see things.

This debate started back in post 101 when Fish posted :

"Neil will have entered Bucks Row from Thomas Street, walking at a measured speed, and he will have needed perhaps two minutes or more to make it down to the murder spot."

I then responded in post 159 saying that entry from Thomas was not a given, not a proven truth and that in my opinion entry from Queen Ann was as likely, if not more so .

Fish replied with the quote from the Evening News in post 163 to which I gave a response in post 167.

I do not see at any point that entry from Queen Ann has been presented as a truth, an option along with Thomas certainly and to me the more likely but has I have made clear many times it hardly matters which in the overall view of Bucks Row.


Steve

Queen Anne Street is not proposed or mentioned in any of the reports. Thomas Street is, and it is said that Neil walked Bucks Row from Thomas Street.

It makes it the better bid in my view, but as I just said to Frank, there is no way of being sure either way.

One point I will make but not press (since I have seen this kind of point pressed far too often) is that I think that Neil will have been asked to give his route in as detailed a fashion as possible, and that if he DID come down from Queen Anne Street, he would have said so and it would have been recorded by the press. However, as I said, I have seen the point "he would have said it, he would have done it" too many times to feel to confident about things. It´s just a feeling I have.

Is that clear enough? Or do we roll me in tar and feathers for having said that I prefer Thomas Street as the one he entered Bucks Row from?

[Elamarna]

It is not a strange reply at all, Steve. It is the result of the frustration I feel whenever you make yourself the interpretor of what I say and get it wrong.

Whenever we assess a case, we WILL work from general rules and principles. Our perception of the world is grounded on it. When somebody drops a stone, we make the assumption that it will fall to the ground.

Therefore, no other parameters involved, the assumption that Neil would have used the northern pavement if he took a left turn coming down from Thomas Street into Bucks Row is a very logical one, in fact THE most logical one.

Beat rules, topography, whims, meetings, obstacles and many more things may have changed that, but it would NOT change the overall viability of what I am saying.

One thing we may be certain of is that none of us is going to be able to pin down the exact route he walked, and another certain thing is that any further disucssion of this will lead to nothing but further inflammation of the matter.

My suggestion is therefore that we leave the issue, and make a try to be a bit more productive.
It seems I keep coming back to that stance.

And that is the issue that you believe we can apply general views and use those, I do not, we start from the general and then should apply the specifics. That you chose not to is your right of course.

However I am happy to stop here until I give my full view later.


Steve

[Elamarna]

For the record, I don´t want this discussion to topple over into some idea that I think that Neil MUST have come from the south or the north or whatever.
If there is somebody who applies no must in all of this, it´s me - I only took up the debate because others seemed to try to make it a truth that Neil came from Queen Anne Street.

All we know is that we do not know. Full stop.

How differently people see things.

This debate started back in post 101 when Fish posted :

"Neil will have entered Bucks Row from Thomas Street, walking at a measured speed, and he will have needed perhaps two minutes or more to make it down to the murder spot."

I then responded in post 159 saying that entry from Thomas was not a given, not a proven truth and that in my opinion entry from Queen Ann was as likely, if not more so .

Fish replied with the quote from the Evening News in post 163 to which I gave a response in post 167.

I do not see at any point that entry from Queen Ann has been presented as a truth, an option along with Thomas certainly and to me the more likely but has I have made clear many times it hardly matters which in the overall view of Bucks Row.


Steve

[Fisherman]

What a strange reply, no one has forbidden anyone to make any observations.
All that has been said, is that given the layout of properties in Bucks Row simple analysis of which side a policeman on his beat would walk cannot be applied to determine which side he entered Bucks Row from.

We are not talking about an individual member of the public walking down a street, but a Policeman doing a specific task. Crossing from side to side has a purpose in this instance.


Steve

It is not a strange reply at all, Steve. It is the result of the frustration I feel whenever you make yourself the interpretor of what I say and get it wrong.

Whenever we assess a case, we WILL work from general rules and principles. Our perception of the world is grounded on it. When somebody drops a stone, we make the assumption that it will fall to the ground.

Therefore, no other parameters involved, the assumption that Neil would have used the northern pavement if he took a left turn coming down from Thomas Street into Bucks Row is a very logical one, in fact THE most logical one.

Beat rules, topography, whims, meetings, obstacles and many more things may have changed that, but it would NOT change the overall viability of what I am saying.

One thing we may be certain of is that none of us is going to be able to pin down the exact route he walked, and another certain thing is that any further disucssion of this will lead to nothing but further inflammation of the matter.

My suggestion is therefore that we leave the issue, and make a try to be a bit more productive.
It seems I keep coming back to that stance.

[FrankO]

For the record, I don´t want this discussion to topple over into some idea that I think that Neil MUST have come from the south or the north or whatever.

It’s good that you post this, because I did get the impression that this was also a point you wanted make, Fish.

All we know is that we do not know. Full stop.

Amen to that. Full stop.

[Fisherman]

Yes it would be good to see the Star and the Echo reports of the 3rd;However these do not appear to be avaible.

I agree with much of your content, It is clear that the report is from a different reporter, or at the very least heavily altered by the editor from other reports..
However while the wording is different the information provided is very similar.
The only real differences being the Evening Post is the only paper not to give a side for Neil and the only to say which side the body is on.

If anyone has the wording from the Star or Echo it would maybe clear this up.
Until such it remains a possibility no more I accept.

Steve

The similarity is mindboggling, I agree with that. If it owes to the reporter having heard Neil say "I was on the right hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street", it could perhaps help explain the reporters choice of wording and the similarity borne out of it.

Either way, it´s one more of them infuriating things that are so common in this case.

[Elamarna]

I don´t care what comes to your mind. If you think you can forbid other posters to make general observations, you are dead wrong. If you think general observations do not apply out here, you are dead wrong.
So just take your pick, and be done with it.

What a strange reply, no one has forbidden anyone to make any observations.
All that has been said, is that given the layout of properties in Bucks Row simple analysis of which side a policeman on his beat would walk cannot be applied to determine which side he entered Bucks Row from.

We are not talking about an individual member of the public walking down a street, but a Policeman doing a specific task. Crossing from side to side has a purpose in this instance.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Indeed, Steve. Even if Neil walked on the south side of Buck’s Row this time around, it doesn’t follow that he MUST have entered Buck’s Row from the southern part of Thomas Street.

I must say that, until I read Neil’s beat in the Echo of 21 September, I thought that Neil must have entered Buck’s Row from the southern part of Thomas Street, because there was, otherwise, no way that he could have missed the 2 carmen. Even though this didn’t fit with Neil’s statement “The farthest I had been that night was just through the Whitechapel-road and up Baker's-row. I was never far away from the spot.”.

Since I know his beat also consisted of the northern part of Thomas Street (and Q. Ann Street), I have little doubt that this part of his beat is the actual explanation for why Neil didn’t see the 2 men. Undoubtedly, Neil didn’t cover each and every interior street, alley and court on each round, but, as it stands, I have no reason to believe he would skip parts of his “exterior” route. By short-cutting through the southern part of Thomas Street he would skip a rather substantial part of his “exterior” route and that just doesn’t seem very likely to me.

All the best,
Frank

For the record, I don´t want this discussion to topple over into some idea that I think that Neil MUST have come from the south or the north or whatever.
If there is somebody who applies no must in all of this, it´s me - I only took up the debate because others seemed to try to make it a truth that Neil came from Queen Anne Street.

All we know is that we do not know. Full stop.

[Elamarna]

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.

Yes it would be good to see the Star and the Echo reports of the 3rd;However these do not appear to be avaible.

I agree with much of your content, It is clear that the report is from a different reporter, or at the very least heavily altered by the editor from other reports..
However while the wording is different the information provided is very similar.
The only real differences being the Evening Post is the only paper not to give a side for Neil and the only to say which side the body is on.

If anyone has the wording from the Star or Echo it would maybe clear this up.
Until such it remains a possibility no more I accept.

Steve

[FrankO]

However owever I do not see that walking on one side or the other indicates the point of entry into Bucks Row.

Indeed, Steve. Even if Neil walked on the south side of Buck’s Row this time around, it doesn’t follow that he MUST have entered Buck’s Row from the southern part of Thomas Street.

I must say that, until I read Neil’s beat in the Echo of 21 September, I thought that Neil must have entered Buck’s Row from the southern part of Thomas Street, because there was, otherwise, no way that he could have missed the 2 carmen. Even though this didn’t fit with Neil’s statement “The farthest I had been that night was just through the Whitechapel-road and up Baker's-row. I was never far away from the spot.”.

Since I know his beat also consisted of the northern part of Thomas Street (and Q. Ann Street), I have little doubt that this part of his beat is the actual explanation for why Neil didn’t see the 2 men. Undoubtedly, Neil didn’t cover each and every interior street, alley and court on each round, but, as it stands, I have no reason to believe he would skip parts of his “exterior” route. By short-cutting through the southern part of Thomas Street he would skip a rather substantial part of his “exterior” route and that just doesn’t seem very likely to me.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

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

I don´t care what comes to your mind. If you think you can forbid other posters to make general observations, you are dead wrong. If you think general observations do not apply out here, you are dead wrong.
So just take your pick, and be done with it.