The Nature of Evidence

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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

[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.