was Nichols murdered where found?

[Rob Clack]

I did a bit of work a few years back trying to determine where the lamp in Bucks Row was. And it was here:



Rob

[Monty]

I am disputing your interpretation of Neils testimony.

Monty

See above.

Monty

[Lechmere]

That's interesting - so you dispute that Neil indicated that the nearest operational gas light was at the end of bucks row by Brady street?

[Monty]

I am disputing your interpretation of Neils testimony.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Are you disputing that neil indicated the nearest illuminated lamp was at the end if bucks row - i.e. at Brady street?

Phil
I accept that there is a stylistic need to make the scenes brighter but that need not be compromised by have shining lights. The same error isn't made in any other murder scene pictures in the book.
The reason why it is significant - and why I brought it up in the thread about the book (post 120) is that it will confuse future readers as has been shown to be the case with this thread right here!

[Monty]

The simple and unalterable fact is that Neil said there was no light nearer than Brady street.

That's not entirely correct.

Monty

[Phil H]

The point is surely that as historians (which is what we should be) we have to balance the evidence, in a reasonable way, where surviving material is in conflict or appears (to us) inconsistent.

It is, after all, quite possible for a generally working light source to be faulty on a particular day; or to be less than efficient (fluctuating, dim etc). Gas lamps were, I believe notoriously likely to either flare up or die away. In the absence of specific records (say, a statement making it explicit that it was "out"; or a docket saying it was routinely repaired next day) we may never know.

To me - the position of the map is clear from the maps and photos, Equally, that the stable door recess area of Bucks Row seemed dark (or darker) appears beyond doubt from what people said at the time. We cannot discount that. Perhaps Polly knew that the location was very dark at that time of night and went there for that reason - it doesn't seem implausible.

So much for the historian. The historical artist has a different problem - an illustration has to show something otherwise there is no purpose in the picture. hence there has to be some cheating. Even a phtotgraph can give an impression different to what being there would have given. An illustration is subjective and has to be practical - to give an idea.

(I think there is a discussion about that precise point in the context of the TV documentary in the thread to which I provided a link.)

Finally, on whether Polly's body had been moved - this was, of course, a major plank in some of the old and now discredited conspiracy theories. Much play was also made of the lack of blood, in the Michael Caine TV mini-series in 1988. Knight had the women murdered in a carriage. I believe that it is now clear that there was no indeed absence of blood - Nichols' clothes had soaked it up. there were no trails of blood indicating the body had been dragged or carried. The murder spot is a logical one for Polly to have chosen it for her business and is consistent with the other Ripper out-door sites.

Thus the only reason for doubting that she was killed where she lay, is to sustain an individual theory about the killings - as was Knight's purpose. He was selective in his choice of material as in so much he wrote.

Phil H

[Lechmere]

The simple and unalterable fact is that Neil said there was no light nearer than Brady street.

[Monty]

Wickerman
Maps may show were gas lights were - they do not show where gas lighted were working. The east end was notoriously full of non working gas lights. When we have direct witness testimony saying that there were no gas Lights it is safe to listen to that testimony.

A part of a Police Constables duty is to report disfunctional lighting on his beat. We have no report of this either from Neil nor in any news account. Of course this does not mean that the lights in Bucks Row were all working, nor does it mean they were not.

This Map (one I believe Jakey worked from) shows the lamps in Pink, the Green circle is the closest to the scene.

Photo shows that lamp in a red circle.

Monty

[Wickerman]

I believe she was killed where she was found.

I would hope most people do.

The only thing that bothers me regarding that is the seeming lack of much blood in the street.

I don't know what the amount is being compared with, her clothes will soak up a good quantity.

Llewellyn did say there was no blood on her front, he made no comment about the back of her clothes.

Helson noticed blood on her collar and in her hair, while the body was still dressed at the mortuary, so Helson was also looking at her front.

Spratling, only arrived after the body had been stripped, so looked at her clothes separately and described blood on the upper part of her dress and her ulster, so he must have been looking at the back of her dress otherwise he would have been in conflict with both Llewellyn & Helson.

So, the upper dress at the back and Uster coat was bloodstained, they must have soaked up the blood.

Regards, Jon S.

[sdreid]

I believe she was killed where she was found. The only thing that bothers me regarding that is the seeming lack of much blood in the street. She was a little too postured to have been thrown out of a cart. I suppose she could have been killed in a nearby residence and then carried there but, if that was the case, why didn't her killer take more time to do his thing.

[Wickerman]

I do understand what you are saying guy's. I'm pointing out that the readily available Ordnance Survey Maps & Goads do not give lighting locations for Bucks Row.
The 1873 Bank & City does include lighting, but the 1873 Whitechapel does not, its inconsistent. Therefore, I questioned where the CSI book obtained its information on Bucks Row.
It is advisable to go with any testimony, or contemporary reports, than unsourced maps in a book, I agree.

Regards, Jon S.

[Mr Lucky]

It has never been easy to establish the placement of street lighting in Whitechapel in 1888. One past debate on the lighting around the GSG occupied pages. Due to the lack of any firm maps being available we simply do not know.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Wickerman

That may be true in general, but we are talking about one location on one particular date, Bucks Row on 31 August. Everyone who was there not only talked about how dark it was, but uses that as a explanation for their behaviour - 'it was too dark to see the blood', 'in the dark I could not tell if it was a man or woman', 'I thought it was a tarpaulin sheet', etc.

The beat policeman, Neil, states 'there was a street lamp in the distance' and we know there was a lamp on the corner with Brady Street, so that's all the street lamps accounted for, surely?

[Lechmere]

Wickerman
Maps may show were gas lights were - they do not show where gas lighted were working. The east end was notoriously full of non working gas lights. When we have direct witness testimony saying that there were no gas Lights it is safe to listen to that testimony.

[Lechmere]

Yes mr lucky - the contemporary testimony makes it clear that there were mo lights near the murder scene. It is beyond dispute.
As I pointed out in the relevant thread discussing the csi book, the very problem (phil) is that as it is an otherwise excellent book, it will likely become a standard reference work and the important inaccuratcy of the street lighting in bucks row Could become part of the perceived 'truths'.
Although some people may be uncomfortable with this, in my opinion it is undoubtedly the case that this particular inaccuracy came about due to what I term 'institutional suspect bias' as quite simply if an aspect of a 'ripper' crime scene was important to a well established suspect, then there is no way that aspect of the crime scene wound be misrepresented. simple .