The Nature of Evidence

[Sam Flynn]

However all six say that on noticing the body he crossed to the body.

All but the Times report " I went across and found"

The Times reports in the 3rd person and says "he went across and found"

Such suggests the body was on the opposite side to him.

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

[Elamarna]

Yes - so the majority of the material is clearly in favour of him having walked on the southern pavement, as I said. And the bulk of the papers say that he came upon the body as he walked.

A quick check shows 6 reports giving full details from the testimony.

These are :

Times 3rd
Telegraph 3rd
Evening standard 3rd
Morning Advertiser 3rd
Lloyds 2nd
Illustrated Police News 8th.

Of these, all but Lloyds say he was on the right hand side.

However all six say that on noticing the body he crossed to the body.

All but the Times report " I went across and found"

The Times reports in the 3rd person and says "he went across and found"


If such was just carried by Lloyds it would be easier to explain, but will all 6 carrying the same details it suggests the body was on the opposite side to him.


An equally interesting point is that none of the six papers use the phrase " he came upon her" as claimed, certainly not in their initial wording.
All say " I noticed a figure lying in the street"; the Times say "he" rather than "I".

Indeed such wording also implies not directly in front of, as it would be if he were walking on the Southern side.
Steve

[Elamarna]

The southern side contained dwellings, where people would have been at home sleeping at 3.45.

The northern side consisted of empty factories and warehouses, mainly.

So where would a burglar be more likely to strike at 3.45 AM? What property would a PC be required to safeguard at what times of the day?

Maybe it is more complicated than you think?

There are few doors for him to check on the Northern side after the gates.

So I do not think so, but who knows for sure.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Well, the part I posted and that I believe formed ground for your suggestion is most certainly a snippet.

It's part of an article listing the 5 beats from early August. The article helps with working on the beat of Thain. When taken as a whole it gives a very valuable tool for the beats. A far better source than the total inadequate Times report of the 3rd, which is a snippet!

No, it is not clear at all, Iīm afraid. Just like you say, it is not hard to see how the route MAY have looked, Steve. No more than that. Winthrop Street is not mentioned in the material, is it? For instance. There are a number of ways in which he may have walked the beat, and we donīt know how it worked out.

Nota bene that whenever I say that things are clear, it has people throwoing themselves off rooftops in protest and dismay...

Not at all. It's a perfectly viable argument if he entered from Thomas or Queen Ann.
No one is jumping up and down.

"Can be" being the operational wording.

Agreed. However the fact remains Bucks Row started at Thomas street.

No, it does not make much difference. The difference lies in how we approach the source material.

I do not agree with that statement, it how we interpret the sources not the approach.

Yes, we are dealing with possibilities. That is correct. And I read that report as if Neil came into Bucks Row from Thomas Street. It is an easy enough thing to do. Itīs a hell of a lot harder to read it as if Neil came into Bucks Row by way of Queen Anne Street.

Yes he may have entered from the Northern part of Thomas street, if he enters from either there or Queen Ann the timing is very close to 30 minutes.
If he enters from the South it reduces this time by around half; however it makes little difference to how long after the Carmen leave that Neil arrives at the body.

It's all in part 3.

No, he did not walk in the middle of the road. He walked on the pavements, in order to be able to check doors and windows. He was supposed to do that. However, depending on how the beat was shaped, he may have walked the southern pavement and the northern one in turns. There is no telling, which is what I keep saying. The majority of the material says that he came upon the body while walking his beat, and that leaves us with the southern pavement being the better bid. Thatīs all.

Given there was so little to actually check on the Northern side he may well have entered in mid street, we cannot be sure.
The sources are somewhat confusing as to which side he was on most do say the right. However at least 6 say he crossed over to has Joshua pointed out.

Which is what I said too, Steve: "He may of course also have walked Bakers Row, turning into Bucks Row, and doubling down the southern part of Thomas Street every other round..."

It's not the same. You have him being in Bucks Row and checking, I have him doing it from Whitechapel.

It is not a suggestion as such, it is me pointing out that we donīt know. It all hails from how it was suddenly written in stone that Neil came into Bucks Row from Queen Anne Street. I noticed that, and I thought Iīd better point out that it is not a very good guess at all.

No it's not in stone at all. However there is a strong argument in favour of it. Unfortunately the case has not been presented in any detail at this point.
So I actually welcome your posts.

I do hope you will enjoy reading the stuff I will post on Neil's beat later, I look at the various options available. Using the sources of The Carmen and Neil it is I feel probable that Neil entered Bucks Row from the North be that Thomas or Queen Ann.

Probable? Iīd settle for possible, and Iīd be better off. But you are welcome to convince me otherwise.

I will indeed attempt to. In many respects it is an academic point as it does not have any effect on the time Neil arrives at the body.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Good point Joshua

The issue of course is that there was little to check on the Northern side after the gates. Neil would be checking on the Southern side for the most part.
I respectfully suggest that which ever side he entered, it cannot not be seen to conclusively prove which side he entered Bucks Row from, North or South.

Steve

The southern side contained dwellings, where people would have been at home sleeping at 3.45.

The northern side consisted of empty factories and warehouses, mainly.

So where would a burglar be more likely to strike at 3.45 AM? What property would a PC be required to safeguard at what times of the day?

Maybe it is more complicated than you think?

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Good post Fish, happy to answer all your questions.
Firstly it's not a snippet of course its a full article.

Well, the part I posted and that I believe formed ground for your suggestion is most certainly a snippet.

Second point it's not hard to see how the route may have looked, several maps have been published. The only real issues are did he do the streets running South from Winthrop, from there or from the Whitechapel road. And did he double back into Thomas from Queen Ann, the rest is really clear.

No, it is not clear at all, Iīm afraid. Just like you say, it is not hard to see how the route MAY have looked, Steve. No more than that. Winthrop Street is not mentioned in the material, is it? For instance. There are a number of ways in which he may have walked the beat, and we donīt know how it worked out.

Nota bene that whenever I say that things are clear, it has people throwoing themselves off rooftops in protest and dismay...

I have no doubt you are correct where it come from.
However research suggests that Bucks Row began at Thomas street. Therefore "walking down Bucks Row, Thomas street" can be viewed as directional.
However I am preparing an in-depth discussion on this in part 3 of the Bucks Row Project.

"Can be" being the operational wording.

That's not 100% how I see it. I suggest he cuts across to Queen Ann from Thomas by the connecting road having walked to the junction with Bucks Row first.
However I also see the possibility that having walked Queen Ann he crosses back into Thomas and from there into Bucks Row. Time wise it does not make much difference and this is also included in part 3.

No, it does not make much difference. The difference lies in how we approach the source material.

First point, it depends on how one reads the reports, ultimately it makes little difference.
Second point on missed street's no issue with that at all. To do the beat as suggested in approx 30mins some bits must be left out on some cycles.
Winthrop at least the Western end of it being a possibility along with various yards and alleyways.

Yes, we are dealing with possibilities. That is correct. And I read that report as if Neil came into Bucks Row from Thomas Street. It is an easy enough thing to do. Itīs a hell of a lot harder to read it as if Neil came into Bucks Row by way of Queen Anne Street.

At last we reach a point of disagreement; which pavement does he walk on?
I do not agree with your intreptation of "came upon", given the width of the street such is not how I see it. Maybe he walked in the middle of the road?

No, he did not walk in the middle of the road. He walked on the pavements, in order to be able to check doors and windows. He was supposed to do that. However, depending on how the beat was shaped, he may have walked the southern pavement and the northern one in turns. There is no telling, which is what I keep saying. The majority of the material says that he came upon the body while walking his beat, and that leaves us with the southern pavement being the better bid. Thatīs all.

I do not follow your suggesting that if he walked up Bakers Row he would miss the Southern part of Thomas, this could have been done as a North-South return from Whitechapel road.

Which is what I said too, Steve: "He may of course also have walked Bakers Row, turning into Bucks Row, and doubling down the southern part of Thomas Street every other round..."

Your various suggestions amount to leaving the whole Northern section of the beat unchecked on some rounds, while individual roads may be missed, a whole section seems unlikely and such struggles to reach 30 minute beat timings.

It is not a suggestion as such, it is me pointing out that we donīt know. It all hails from how it was suddenly written in stone that Neil came into Bucks Row from Queen Anne Street. I noticed that, and I thought Iīd better point out that it is not a very good guess at all.

As pointed out above, I prefer entry from Queen Ann street, but doubling back into Thomas is perfectly ok too.

What can I say? Thank you kindly?

I do hope you will enjoy reading the stuff I will post on Neil's beat later, I look at the various options available. Using the sources of The Carmen and Neil it is I feel probable that Neil entered Bucks Row from the North be that Thomas or Queen Ann.

Probable? Iīd settle for possible, and Iīd be better off. But you are welcome to convince me otherwise.

[Fisherman]

Some reports say that his "attention was drawn" to her, rather than he came upon her, and that he "went across" to where she lay.

The Telegraph, Times and Morning Advertiser report Neil walking on the right hand side of Buck's Row, however Lloyds reports him walking on the left hand side.

Yes - so the majority of the material is clearly in favour of him having walked on the southern pavement, as I said. And the bulk of the papers say that he came upon the body as he walked.

[Elamarna]

Some reports say that his "attention was drawn" to her, rather than he came upon her, and that he "went across" to where she lay.

The Telegraph, Times and Morning Advertiser report Neil walking on the right hand side of Buck's Row, however Lloyds reports him walking on the left hand side.

Good point Joshua

The issue of course is that there was little to check on the Northern side after the gates. Neil would be checking on the Southern side for the most part.
I respectfully suggest that which ever side he entered, it cannot not be seen to conclusively prove which side he entered Bucks Row from, North or South.

Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

What I think points a finger to the real version of events is how all the papers have the same wording about how Neil found Nichols - he "came upon her" as he walked down Bucks Row. To me, this says that she was lying on the pavement Neil was using. There is no mentioning about him crossing the street to reach her, as far as I can remember, instead the papers say he came upon the body as he walked.

Some reports say that his "attention was drawn" to her, rather than he came upon her, and that he "went across" to where she lay.

The Telegraph, Times and Morning Advertiser report Neil walking on the right hand side of Buck's Row, however Lloyds reports him walking on the left hand side.

[Pierre]

So Iīm back, and nothing much has changed. I can read about how I am "twisting" the evidence (thanks for that, Caz), 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!), and I can notice how a poster who has claimed on my behalf that I think that I can quantify how often doctors are correct or not is actually regarded as a truthful and reliable person (thatīs where you fell from grace, Steve - a shortish fall, but nevertheless).

If it has been decided/discovered/"found" that the Lechmere theory is wrong, Iīd be grateful to have the main points in the evidence chain leading up to these revelations disclosed to me in a short, comprehensible list. Otherwise, I will work from the presumption that nothing new has been added and all there is in the way of criticism is the same old, same old...

Anybody? Was there anything at all new mentioned while I was away?

Anybody? Hooray!

Yes, I mentioned something new about Lechmere.

It is a hypothetical piece of evidence for Lechmere having killed Stride and Eddowes.

Here it is:

The hypothesis about his domineering mother explains the choice of evidence placed in Goulston Street the 30th September 1888.

Lechmere cut the piece of apron from the rest of the apron. He symbolically cut the apron strings.

Cutting the apron strings was important for men.

What do you think about this?

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hereīs a question for those who have delved into the maps and come up with the conclusion that John Neil came into Bucks Row by way of Queen Anne Street. This has been put on the agenda by means of a snippet from the Echo, stating "the third constable (who would be Neil, my remark) would commence at Brady street, cover Whitechapel road, Baker's row, Thomas street, Queen Anne street, and Buck's row, to Brady street, and all the interior, this consisting of about ten streets, courts, passage, &c.?
Letīs begin by realizing that Neil covered not only the six streets named in the article, but actually about ten streets. So we will have a hard time establishing exactly how his beat looked - if the Echo was on the money.

Good post Fish, happy to answer all your questions.
Firstly it's not a snippet of course its a full article.
Second point it's not hard to see how the route may have looked, several maps have been published. The only real issues are did he do the streets running South from Winthrop, from there or from the Whitechapel road. And did he double back into Thomas from Queen Ann, the rest is really clear.

What we DO have is the official Casebook version: "He had walked from Thomas Street into Buck's Row and was heading eastwards towards Brady Street", specifying that it was not from Queen Anne Street Neil came into Queen Anne Street, but instead from Thomas Street.

This idea is almost certainly based on press evidence, like the one presented in the Evening News: "The facts are that Constable John Neil was walking down Bucks-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning..."
No mentioning of Queen Anne Street there!

I have no doubt you are correct where it come from.
However research suggests that Bucks Row began at Thomas street. Therefore "walking down Bucks Row, Thomas street" can be viewed as directional.
However I am preparing an in-depth discussion on this in part 3 of the Bucks Row Project.

Now, Thomas Street was a long one and stretched both in a southernly direction from Bucks Row AND in a northernly ditto, where it turned ninety degrees left after a hundred yards or so, retaining the name Thomas Street after the turn. It then ended where it joined up with Bakers Row.

It is therefore not illogical to suggest, as Steve does (I believe?), that Neil may have walked up Bakerīs Row from the south, to the junction with Thomas Street, where he would have taken a right turn into the latter street, then that ninety-degree turn that left him on the southernheaded part of Thomas Street until he came into Bucks Row, whereafter he took a left up Queen Anne Street, using it as a cul-de-sac, returning down to Bucks Row again afterwards.

That's not 100% how I see it. I suggest he cuts across to Queen Ann from Thomas by the connecting road having walked to the junction with Bucks Row first.
However I also see the possibility that having walked Queen Ann he crosses back into Thomas and from there into Bucks Row. Time wise it does not make much difference and this is also included in part 3.

No matter how Neil covered Queen Anne Street, it still remains that the papers have him entering Bucks Row from Thomas Street, though. So the proposition that he came from Queen Anne Street is simply wrong, as far as I can tell.

It applies that there were beats that were walked in a fashion where some streets were not walked on every round. They could be walked every other round. It all hinged on how important it was thought to be that the different streets were all covered in at least some degree. This could be what applies here. The indication is clear - Neil came from Thomas Street.

First point, it depends on how one reads the reports, ultimately it makes little difference.
Second point on missed street's no issue with that at all. To do the beat as suggested in approx 30mins some bits must be left out on some cycles.
Winthrop at least the Western end of it being a possibility along with various yards and alleyways.

What I think points a finger to the real version of events is how all the papers have the same wording about how Neil found Nichols - he "came upon her" as he walked down Bucks Row. To me, this says that she was lying on the pavement Neil was using. There is no mentioning about him crossing the street to reach her, as far as I can remember, instead the papers say he came upon the body as he walked.

If he had come from Queen Anne Street, he would have entered the narrow part of Bucks Row on the northern pavement, not the southern where Nichols lay.
If he came from Thomas Street, he may well have come up from the south, if he did not walk Bakers Row every time - if he walked clockwise, always using Bakers Row to walk up from Whitechapel Road, he would leave the southern stretch of Thomas Street unwalked - and if this was so, it would be logical for him to enter the narrow Bucks Row stretch on the southern pavement. He may of course also have walked Bakers Row, turning into Bucks Row, and doubling down the southern part of Thomas Street every other round, doing the same up Queen Anne Street on the remaining rounds. We cannot possibly know.

At last we reach a point of disagreement; which pavement does he walk on?
I do not agree with your intreptation of "came upon", given the width of the street such is not how I see it. Maybe he walked in the middle of the road?

I do not follow your suggesting that if he walked up Bakers Row he would miss the Southern part of Thomas, this could have been done as a North-South return from Whitechapel road.
Your various suggestions amount to leaving the whole Northern section of the beat unchecked on some rounds, while individual roads may be missed, a whole section seems unlikely and such struggles to reach 30 minute beat timings.

Of course, this is all speculation, but I hasten to add that the same applies to Steves suggestion - we cannot be sure how the beat was walked in every detail. But it is established that the suggested route as per the papers was one where Neil entered Bucks Row from Thomas Street and not Queen Anne Street.

Itīs all good and well to read a passage like the one from the Echo and try to establish matters from it. But one should not leave out the specific evidence relating to the issue in making that effort.

As pointed out above, I prefer entry from Queen Ann street, but doubling back into Thomas is perfectly ok too.

I do hope you will enjoy reading the stuff I will post on Neil's beat later, I look at the various options available. Using the sources of The Carmen and Neil it is I feel probable that Neil entered Bucks Row from the North be that Thomas or Queen Ann.

Steve

[caz]

Hi Caz,

The police was often criticized in the press.

Your hypothesis implies that:

The police, i.e. police constables or officers working with murder cases, could not work indenpendently and according to the law, but was instead seriously affected by the writings of journalists, in fact so seriously affected by the press that sworn policemen lied at murder inquests.

OK.

Pierre

Hypothesis is putting it a bit strong, Pierre. I don't know if Mizen lied or not. Maybe he was so used to seeing the police criticised in the papers that he took Paul's scathing comments on the chin, thinking little of them. My focus is more on Cross's supposed reaction to reading what Paul had to say about him. And it makes no sense that Cross came forward as a direct result to limit some perceived damage. If he killed Nichols, he also knew when leaving PC Mizen that his role as finder was bound to come out one way or another, if not via Paul, then via Mizen. He could hardly have expected that neither of them would mention him at all. One wonders, however, if Mizen would have reported the encounter had Paul and Cross not done so.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Hereīs a question for those who have delved into the maps and come up with the conclusion that John Neil came into Bucks Row by way of Queen Anne Street. This has been put on the agenda by means of a snippet from the Echo, stating "the third constable (who would be Neil, my remark) would commence at Brady street, cover Whitechapel road, Baker's row, Thomas street, Queen Anne street, and Buck's row, to Brady street, and all the interior, this consisting of about ten streets, courts, passage, &c.?
Letīs begin by realizing that Neil covered not only the six streets named in the article, but actually about ten streets. So we will have a hard time establishing exactly how his beat looked - if the Echo was on the money.

What we DO have is the official Casebook version: "He had walked from Thomas Street into Buck's Row and was heading eastwards towards Brady Street", specifying that it was not from Queen Anne Street Neil came into Queen Anne Street, but instead from Thomas Street.

This idea is almost certainly based on press evidence, like the one presented in the Evening News: "The facts are that Constable John Neil was walking down Bucks-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning..."
No mentioning of Queen Anne Street there!

Now, Thomas Street was a long one and stretched both in a southernly direction from Bucks Row AND in a northernly ditto, where it turned ninety degrees left after a hundred yards or so, retaining the name Thomas Street after the turn. It then ended where it joined up with Bakers Row.

It is therefore not illogical to suggest, as Steve does (I believe?), that Neil may have walked up Bakerīs Row from the south, to the junction with Thomas Street, where he would have taken a right turn into the latter street, then that ninety-degree turn that left him on the southernheaded part of Thomas Street until he came into Bucks Row, whereafter he took a left up Queen Anne Street, using it as a cul-de-sac, returning down to Bucks Row again afterwards.

No matter how Neil covered Queen Anne Street, it still remains that the papers have him entering Bucks Row from Thomas Street, though. So the proposition that he came from Queen Anne Street is simply wrong, as far as I can tell.

It applies that there were beats that were walked in a fashion where some streets were not walked on every round. They could be walked every other round. It all hinged on how important it was thought to be that the different streets were all covered in at least some degree. This could be what applies here. The indication is clear - Neil came from Thomas Street.

What I think points a finger to the real version of events is how all the papers have the same wording about how Neil found Nichols - he "came upon her" as he walked down Bucks Row. To me, this says that she was lying on the pavement Neil was using. There is no mentioning about him crossing the street to reach her, as far as I can remember, instead the papers say he came upon the body as he walked.

If he had come from Queen Anne Street, he would have entered the narrow part of Bucks Row on the northern pavement, not the southern where Nichols lay.
If he came from Thomas Street, he may well have come up from the south, if he did not walk Bakers Row every time - if he walked clockwise, always using Bakers Row to walk up from Whitechapel Road, he would leave the southern stretch of Thomas Street unwalked - and if this was so, it would be logical for him to enter the narrow Bucks Row stretch on the southern pavement. He may of course also have walked Bakers Row, turning into Bucks Row, and doubling down the southern part of Thomas Street every other round, doing the same up Queen Anne Street on the remaining rounds. We cannot possibly know.

Of course, this is all speculation, but I hasten to add that the same applies to Steves suggestion - we cannot be sure how the beat was walked in every detail. But it is established that the suggested route as per the papers was one where Neil entered Bucks Row from Thomas Street and not Queen Anne Street.

Itīs all good and well to read a passage like the one from the Echo and try to establish matters from it. But one should not leave out the specific evidence relating to the issue in making that effort.

[Fisherman]

So Iīm back, and nothing much has changed. I can read about how I am "twisting" the evidence (thanks for that, Caz), 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!), and I can notice how a poster who has claimed on my behalf that I think that I can quantify how often doctors are correct or not is actually regarded as a truthful and reliable person (thatīs where you fell from grace, Steve - a shortish fall, but nevertheless).

If it has been decided/discovered/"found" that the Lechmere theory is wrong, Iīd be grateful to have the main points in the evidence chain leading up to these revelations disclosed to me in a short, comprehensible list. Otherwise, I will work from the presumption that nothing new has been added and all there is in the way of criticism is the same old, same old...

Anybody? Was there anything at all new mentioned while I was away?

[Pcdunn]

Hello Pat,

>>Back on topic, I had a thought about all the people surrounding the crime scenes who all claimed they heard nothing while sleeping: life and work was much harder in that time and place, and perhaps people really did sleep much more soundly than many of us do in the 21st century<<

In the case of Mrs. Nichols murder, both Mrs's Green and Purkis claimed to be poor sleepers, in Pukis's case actually awake most of the night.

Hello, Dusty,

Thanks for the reply. I suppose it may have been like today, where some people sleep well, and others do not. I'm sure some folks had chronic aches and pains that may have kept them awake, or allowed them to sleep fitfully, with periods of wakefulness.