was Nichols murdered where found?

[Lechmere]

We haven't got neil's report as ti whether there were lamps not working or indeed whether he knew from long experience that bucks row was in darkness - but I prefer to wait for mr lucky's view.
We do know that Neil said the nearest light was at the end if the row on the opposite side to him which certainly implies very strongly that he meant to one at the far end of bucks row and on the opposite side of the road to him - namely the one in Brady street - which that interesting photo demonstrates would have been in his line of sight if he was on the northern pavement and his statement makes it clear that is where he was.
I don't need to rely on google maps - no 1 eyeball us much more efficient

[Monty]

Yes but we were discussing the discrepancies and inconsistencies - which are the catalyst in part for the supposition that nichols was killed elsewhere or there was some sort of conspiracy involved. Hence Monty leaping to the defence of Thain and mizen misses the point.
I said Mizen's knocking up was legitimate but he pointedly denied continuing whereas Paul and Charles lechmere said he did. Discrepancy. Why did mizen lie? He knew he would be criticised for not going immediately.
Why did thain deny gossiping with the slaughtermen? this created another discrepancy. Thain was worried he would be criticised for stopping for a chat.

None of the lights down bucks row seem to have been working except - arguably but unlikely - the one opposite the school on the other side of the bridge and cutting. The digging of the cutting is a good explanation for this but I would like to hear mr lucky's views.
Incidentally the bridge fixes the width of bucks row as of 1888 sand from it we can determine lined of sight very well.

Theres a difference between stopping for a chat and the accusation of dereliction of duty. I am merely pointing out that it isnt as clear cut as you state.

We have no reports of lamps not working in Bucks Row during the night of the murder. Neil does not state that any lamps were faulty and it was his duty to record such matters.

As stated, Mr Luckys cuttings range from between 10 and 5 years prior to the murder, and the most recent nowhere near Bucks Row, I fail to see how this can be counted as evidence that the lamps were out. Again, when he comes up with reports concerning Bucks Row and 1888 then its to be noted. The bottom line is that Whitechapel Station was completed by 1876.

The carriageway remains the same. However the wall/building on the northside of Durward Street sit slightly back (Northwards) today than in 1888, this was made clear in a previous post of mine. Therefore any comparison is not exact.

However if you wish to take a stroll via Google along the street, you will see what you are stating is an impossibility.

Monty


PS Attached is a shot of the row C1965 - Courtesy of Andrew Firth. Nice shot which Ive not seen before. Also show how difficult it would have been to have viewed a lamp in Brady street from the scene.

[Lechmere]

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

[Monty]

Error

[Lechmere]

Yes but we were discussing the discrepancies and inconsistencies - which are the catalyst in part for the supposition that nichols was killed elsewhere or there was some sort of conspiracy involved. Hence Monty leaping to the defence of Thain and mizen misses the point.
I said Mizen's knocking up was legitimate but he pointedly denied continuing whereas Paul and Charles lechmere said he did. Discrepancy. Why did mizen lie? He knew he would be criticised for not going immediately.
Why did thain deny gossiping with the slaughtermen? this created another discrepancy. Thain was worried he would be criticised for stopping for a chat.

None of the lights down bucks row seem to have been working except - arguably but unlikely - the one opposite the school on the other side of the bridge and cutting. The digging of the cutting is a good explanation for this but I would like to hear mr lucky's views.
Incidentally the bridge fixes the width of bucks row as of 1888 sand from it we can determine lined of sight very well.

[Phil H]

neglect of duty

So much depends on the weight which we attach to, and put on words.

One man's negligence is another man's dereliction of duty. Sometimes these things are unintended, casual - they happen because (as I suspect the case was in Buck's Row) relatively junior officials (constables/doctors) do not recognise the importance (or potential importance0 of a situation, nor of the impact of their action or inaction.

In my working life I saw plenty of examples of incidents where higher ranking officials could not understand why those at much lower levels were working as usual, and not switching their attention to higher priority or different tasks demanded by the changed circumstances. The same thuing goes for energy levels. Often, again in my experience, this happens because those in senior positions have not briefed or informed those below them.

I think this was what happened with Polly's murder. Mizen went on "knocking up" or whatever, because the fact of the murder had not penetrated to him. (Or just maybe because he felt he would get into MORE trouble with his seniors if he did not carry on with what he had previously been told to do.)

Policemen and doctors did what they had to do but without conviction, energy or attention (beyond the minimum). Afterwards - when they had been told, or realised themselves - what they should have done, they sought to excuse themselves. End of story. It's human nature.

It is one thing, in retrospect, to say that the press were beginning to connect earlier murders into aseries. That Polly's death should have been looked into more thoroughly in the minutes and hours after the body was found. But while those in senior positions may have recognised what the press were doing, and its implications - how was this transmitted to the men on the ground, the worker bees, as it were? Was it transmitted at all? I doubt the average constable in 1888 was in a position to have put the pieces together himself, and even if one or two did, they would be a minority. besides they had their sergeants and others to think about.

So, on balance, I don't see the actions of a Thain or Mizen as derelict or negligent, any more than they would have been on any other day. But this was not just any day - as we now know. But how, without hindsight, could they have known that?

So I leave you with the thought that criticising the men on the ground on the day may have more to do with hindsight than understanding. Mistakes were made, but they were honest mistakes.

Phil H

[Monty]

Mr Lucky
Are you hinting that the Gas company may have withdrawn the gas supply to some of the lamps down Bucks Row as a result of the railway cutting?

If thats the case then is quoting reports 5-10 years prior to the murders and not in the correct location. When Mr Lucky comes up with something relevant to the scene then I think you should take note Edward.

Bridewell
I’m going from memory here but in essenece...
The three slaughtermen of Winthrop Street said Thane came to tell them about the murder and he retrieved his cape at the same time. This presumably happened when Thane was on his way to get Dr Llewellyn.
Thane denied doing this as it would have represented a dereliction of his duty – stopping off to gossip instead of going immediately to get Llewellyn. No doubt he denied it to avoid getting in trouble. I guess that amongst all the hallaballoo about this case and with his seniors being reprimanded for the more serious error in failing to get statements from all the residents in Bucks Row, his actions were not looked into.
The slaughter yard was not on his beat so to drop it off there in the first place meant he was leaving his beat.

There is no dereliction of duty, Thain executed what was asked of him. Neil supports this as he states the Doctor "arrived in a very short time".

Thain merely informed the Slaughters of what had happened as he collected his cape, hardly standing around gossiping.

And as Simon states, Thain claimed a Brother PC left it there (this could be supported by change over). However, if he was lying and he left it there himself then how do you know it was during his beat and not prior to it?

Again as Mizen denied continuing to knock up ( as he knew he was in error) he probably avoided censure – also as I said the police had weightier things on their minds.

Knocking up was a permitted extra duty granted to PCs and taken on from the old watchman days. As far as Mizen was aware, the woman was dead or drunk in Bucks Row and no doubtledly he felt they were over exaggerating, one persumes based on his experiences. Not ideal I admit, however understandable.

Similarly as the was covering the abdominal injuries Llewellyn didn’t see them and can hardly be blamed for not guessing they were there. Nevertheless, after they were discovered, Llewellyn’s discomfort at not having checked further is palpable.

Llewellyn gave his reasons why he did not conduct a further examination at the scene and nor was he required to. First duty to see if assistance can be rendered, second to pronnounce life exstinct, third to try and establish cause of death, fouth record the position of the body. He did all of these. There is no reason for Llewellyn to feel 'discomfort'.

As has been pointed out, this was the first well publicised murder. It was regarded as the third in a series and the most brutal to date. This was not immediately apparent, due in large measure to the dress being pulled down. Mizen cannot have anticipated that it was a major incident as he was not sufficiently alerted by Cross/Lechmere. But once the case exploded in the press, Thane, Mizen, Llewellyn and to an extent Neil were exposed to the full force of the media’s (and consequently the coroner’s) scrutiny.

They felt compelled to explain away minor indiscretions and this has led to certain inconsistencies in their accounts.

That is a fair point, to a degree. As Phil H has pointed out, I cannot recall a case to my knowledge which has a complete smooth run of testimony and evidence. Such cases would be a doddle to work on, however the reality of the situation is that confusion will raise its head and differences of recollection will occur.

Nothing is black and white and the conclusion of neglect of duty is a too easy jab to make.

Monty

[Lechmere]

How lucky was culprit – or if you prefer culprits – who carried out the various unsolved attacks in the East End?
Bear in mind that the area was around three times more densely populated than today. The murders took place in close proximity to hundreds of people – not all asleep. And yet there is not one reliable eye witness description.
I take it that it was the murderer’s intention to mutilate the abdomen.
So how successful was he in completing his gruesome task?

1. Annie Millwood – survived the attack (at least initially). This is presuming that her attacker intended to kill her. The implication is that for whatever reason the attacker was unable to complete his task.

2. Ada Wilson – again she survived her attack, presuming again that the culprit intended to murder her.

3. Emma Smith – she died but a couple of days later. If murder was the intention it was not immediately successful. This was of course a gang attack and seems to be the least likely to be linked to the other attacks

4. Martha Tabram – she seems to have been left in the manner her assailant wished her to be found (unless he or they carelessly just left her as she was). However there is no indication that the perpetrator was disturbed.

5. Polly Nichols – her dress was pulled down over her abdominal injuries which suggests that her attacker was disturbed and wanted to buy time.

6. Annie Chapman – she again seems to have been left in the manner in which her attacker wished her to be found.

7. Unknown woman attacked by knife off Commercial Street – survived. Of course murder may not have been the intention.

8. Liz Stride – presuming she was attacked by the same person, the absence of abdominal injuries is suggestive that the perpetrator was disturbed.

9. Catherine Eddowes - she seems to have been left in the manner in which her attacker wished her to be found.

10. Mary Kelly - she seems to have been left in the manner in which her attacker wished her to be found.

11. Annie Farmer – she survived but this might have been a case of her attempting to rob a punter.

12. Rose Mylett – strangled only. If by the same hand then he was most probably disturbed and so could not carry out further knife attacks.

13. Alice Mackenzie – her wounds were less severe and the presumption was that the killer may have been disturbed.

14. Pinchin Street Torso - she seems to have been left in the manner in which her attacker wished her to be found.

15. Frances Coles – her attacker seems to have been disturbed.

Of these 15 attacks, 4 were non fatal and 6 showed signs of the perpetrator or perpetrators being disturbed in some way. In only five instances can we say with any certainty that the killer substantially completed what he set out to do.

[Lechmere]

Mr Lucky
Are you hinting that the Gas company may have withdrawn the gas supply to some of the lamps down Bucks Row as a result of the railway cutting?

Bridewell
I’m going from memory here but in essenece...
The three slaughtermen of Winthrop Street said Thane came to tell them about the murder and he retrieved his cape at the same time. This presumably happened when Thane was on his way to get Dr Llewellyn.
Thane denied doing this as it would have represented a dereliction of his duty – stopping off to gossip instead of going immediately to get Llewellyn. No doubt he denied it to avoid getting in trouble. I guess that amongst all the hallaballoo about this case and with his seniors being reprimanded for the more serious error in failing to get statements from all the residents in Bucks Row, his actions were not looked into.
The slaughter yard was not on his beat so to drop it off there in the first place meant he was leaving his beat.

Similarly Mizen failed to take the names of Cross/Lechmere and Paul and he failed to go immediately when told that there was an incident. Both Paul and Cross/Lechmere said he continued to knock up. Now whether or not Cross/Lechmere told him there was another officer already in situ, Mizen should have gone straight and not continued to knock up. Undoubtedly this is why he said he did go straight. He was covering up his error. I wouldn’t describe this as skiving (unlike Thane) as he was working but just failed to immediately take the correct course of action.
Again as Mizen denied continuing to knock up ( as he knew he was in error) he probably avoided censure – also as I said the police had weightier things on their minds

Similarly as the was covering the abdominal injuries Llewellyn didn’t see them and can hardly be blamed for not guessing they were there. Nevertheless, after they were discovered, Llewellyn’s discomfort at not having checked further is palpable.

As has been pointed out, this was the first well publicised murder. It was regarded as the third in a series and the most brutal to date. This was not immediately apparent, due in large measure to the dress being pulled down. Mizen cannot have anticipated that it was a major incident as he was not sufficiently alerted by Cross/Lechmere. But once the case exploded in the press, Thane, Mizen, Llewellyn and to an extent Neil were exposed to the full force of the media’s (and consequently the coroner’s) scrutiny.

They felt compelled to explain away minor indiscretions and this has led to certain inconsistencies in their accounts.

[Bridewell]

Routine

There was clearly embarrassment over Thane retreiving his cape and over Mann's actions in the mortuary.

I don't as I recall think it was clear who put thane's cape in the slaughterhouse - I think it was off his beat so maybe that explain's the Neil excuse for dropping it off?

Police capes were extremely heavy and nothing more than an encumbrance when not needed. If an officer removed his cape he would have to leave it with someone for safe keeping. No mystery. Nothing which indicates a skive. It was (and is to this day) part of the routine of a patrolling officer, at night, to check on the welfare of others who were also working night shifts. Pc Watkins looking in on George Morris at Kearley & Tonge occasionally is a case in point.
If you travel around the UK at night you'll see police vehicles parked up on petrol station forecourts. Same procedure - checking on welfare, gathering information. It's what policemen do at night. They don't just walk; they also interact with their environment. It's not skiving (unless taken to extreme); it's part of the job.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Mr Lucky]

‘10 To authorise the company [Great Eastern railway] to enter into arrangements with the Gas Light and Coke Company and the Imperial Gas Company and the Amalgamated Company as to the construction of the Branch Line and Works hereinafter described and otherwise.’

If the 'Commercial Gas Light and Coke company' is the same as the 'Gas Light and Coke Company' then they did supply Whitechapel with gas -

‘CUTTING OFF GAS. - Judgement was given on Thursday by Mr. Bushby, at Worship-street, on the case in which Mr Scott, a publican of Whitechapel, proceeded against the Commercial Gas Light and Coke company for having cut off his gas. The gas company alleged they had given verbal notice to complainant that payments for gas must be made monthly instead of quarterly. The magistrate found that there had been no proper contract for the payment of the prosecutor’s account monthly instead of quarterly, and that, therefore, he was not in arrears when the gas was cut off. The company were liable to be fined 40s. for every day’s withdrawal of the gas supply, but, as there was a doubt in the matter, a penalty of £10, with about £15 costs, was imposed’

Reynolds’s Newspaper 10 January 1875

[Monty]

You got my name wrong but that is understandable

Apologies my Son

God

[Lechmere]

You got my name wrong but that is understandable

[Monty]

Jesus....so do I.

Monty

[Lechmere]

I agree jon