was Nichols murdered where found?

[Lechmere]

This may be becoming an increasingly arcane discussion, but in 1891 nos. 1-5 were no longer in Bucks Row, which suggests that the re-listing happened between 1888 and the Goad map of 1890.
Interestingly the Goad map makes no reference to Great Eastern Square. I would suggest that it is most likely that it briefly referred only to the frontage of the school. The 1886 map is not exactly clear.

Various reports make it clear that Bucks Row was regarded as running from Thomas Street to Brady Street.
Take this from ‘The Echo’ of 1st September:
“Buck's-row runs through from Thomas-street to Brady-street, and in the latter street what appeared to be bloodstains were found at irregular distances on the footpaths on either side of the way.”
This is not an isolated example. It is dangerous to place too much reliance on cartographers who are unfamiliar with localities.

On the issue of reporting faulty gas lights, take a look at the map on post 24.
There are two other gas lights indicated on Bucks Row.
Does Neil mention them? No.
Clearly (yes clearly) they were not working.
Does Neil report this fact at the inquest? No.
Did Neil report any other lights? No.
Conclusion – he only mentioned the one light that was working.

If that one light was the one at the end of Bucks Row on Brady Street, why would Neil mention the light?
Was it visible to him?
Yes, he could see it when he noticed the body.
It is stated that he walked across to get to the body. Although some reports say he was on the right hand (or southern) side of the road, others say he was on the left hand (northern) side. They both say that he walked across. As the body was on the southern side of the road this implies that he had to cross Bucks Row to get to it. Hence he must have been on the northern or left hand side. From that side he could have seen the Brady Street light.

The light is also referred to as being on the opposite side. This would not be the case if it was the western light which would have been on the same side as Neil, whereas the Brady Street light was effectively on the opposite side.

Lastly as commercial premises occupied the left or northern side of Bucks Row it makes sense that Neil walked down that side.

While I agree that there is no grounds for thinking that Polly Nicholls was killed anywhere but at Bucks Row, the doors to Brown's Stable Yard do not seem to have been recessed to any marked degree.

[spyglass]

Why should we even think that the body might have been killed elsewhere?

As I have said earlier, the location, the recessed doors, the relative darkness were all consistent with a place an unfortunate might go to conduct her business.

There is no suggestion that Annie, Liz, Kate, mary or any other potential victim was murdered other than where they were discovered. So my hypothcate such an idea for Polly?

It was discussed in the past as part of a notion (now discredited) that they were killed in carriage and dumped.

I see no logic to any discussion of a potential different MO in this case.

Phil H

Hi,
The only reason I questioned about Nicoles being murdered else where was because I noticed the lamp lighting up the murder spot and thus making it a silly place to carry out such a deed, but a good place to display a body.
But now it seems the lamp wasnt there and so doesnt matter now.


Regards.

[Monty]

Various reports make it clear that Bucks Row was regarded as running from Thomas Street to Brady Street.
Take this from ‘The Echo’ of 1st September:
“Buck's-row runs through from Thomas-street to Brady-street, and in the latter street what appeared to be bloodstains were found at irregular distances on the footpaths on either side of the way.”
This is not an isolated example. It is dangerous to place too much reliance on cartographers who are unfamiliar with localities.

Whereas the Echo reporter is far better qualified to claim he is familar with the area than a map maker.

Neil would have been obliged to mention exactly what lights were not working, not what were. That is in the book of regulations.

No, at the distance of the scene from the Brady St lamp means it impossible to see the lamp Rob pointed out in Brady St. Your angles do not work.

Monty

[Lechmere]

The Echo is not alone - I suggest you read some of the press reports if you doubt it.
There is also the 1881 census and the 1888 Trade Directory.

I recommend that you visit Durward Street and use no 1 eyeball to confirm your angle theory. You could pace out the routes from Old Montague Street and Hanbury Street to Liverpool Street at the same time.

We don't know what Neil may have mentioned in his police reports. We know he only mentioend one light at the inquest.

The layout on the ground, his testimony and the logic of Neil's movements make it quite clear what light he was referring to.

In some respects it is academic from my point of view. The important issue, as pointed out by Spyglass, is that there was no light working near enough to the murder scene to illuminate it in any way.

[Bridewell]

On the issue of reporting faulty gas lights, take a look at the map on post 24.
There are two other gas lights indicated on Bucks Row.
Does Neil mention them? No.
Clearly (yes clearly) they were not working.
Does Neil report this fact at the inquest? No.
Did Neil report any other lights? No.
Conclusion – he only mentioned the one light that was working.

If that one light was the one at the end of Bucks Row on Brady Street, why would Neil mention the light?
Was it visible to him?
Yes, he could see it when he noticed the body.
It is stated that he walked across to get to the body. Although some reports say he was on the right hand (or southern) side of the road, others say he was on the left hand (northern) side. They both say that he walked across. As the body was on the southern side of the road this implies that he had to cross Bucks Row to get to it. Hence he must have been on the northern or left hand side. From that side he could have seen the Brady Street light.

The light is also referred to as being on the opposite side. This would not be the case if it was the western light which would have been on the same side as Neil, whereas the Brady Street light was effectively on the opposite side.

Lastly as commercial premises occupied the left or northern side of Bucks Row it makes sense that Neil walked down that side.

You're reading an awful lot into a very brief statement:

It was dark at the time, although a street lamp was shining at the end of the row.

That's the sum total of what Neil tells us about the street lighting. The rest is supposition.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Monty]

Again, are you stating a news reporter is more familiar with the area than a Cartographer, who works with maps, plans, plots and does his homework?

I've been down Durward many times. Your suggestion of using 'no 1 eyeball' (?) Is pointless, as the street is actually wider, building to building, than in 1888. The map suffices.

Yes, it is very clear what lamp neil is referring to and it isn't the lamp in Brady Street. The angle, testimony, location makes the western lamp more viable than the one you suggest.

Yes, your point of view is unimportant to the question raised. However your opinion that only one conclusion can be drawn is erronous.

Monty

[Lechmere]

No it isn't bridewell as there was only one lamp that was both at the end of bucks row and the end of the row if houses, and on the opposite side to where he was when he saw it, and some distance off. You need to read all the reports.

On cartographers - they are very far from being Omnipotent, as anyone with a Tom Tom should be able to tell you.
On the question of great eastern square they are very far from being unanimous. Are the cartographers that fail to show great eastern square equally correct?
Against that we have the 1881 census, 1888 trade directory and a variety of newspaper reports, including ones based on neil's statements.
It is fairly conclusive that bucks row started at Thomas street - and this is not just based on one newspaper report - but as in all good historical interpretation it is based on drawing information from a variety of sources.

[Monty]

Whites Row did not exist, nor Great Eastern Square....its all an illusion.

No it isn't bridewell as there was only one lamp that was both at the end of bucks row and the end of the row if houses, and on the opposite side to where he was when he saw it, and some distance off. You need to read all the reports.

Your closed interpretation of the testimony given is of course your want. Suffice to say it is not fact but rather supposition, as Colin states.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Good grief .
When all else fails misrepresent.
A bit like the tried and tested 'job' tactic known as 'verballing'.

[Monty]

Good grief .
When all else fails misrepresent.
A bit like the tried and tested 'job' tactic known as 'verballing'.

So if you are aware of it, why do you conduct it?

Monty

[Michael W Richards]

Why should we even think that the body might have been killed elsewhere?

As I have said earlier, the location, the recessed doors, the relative darkness were all consistent with a place an unfortunate might go to conduct her business.

There is no suggestion that Annie, Liz, Kate, mary or any other potential victim was murdered other than where they were discovered. So my hypothcate such an idea for Polly?

It was discussed in the past as part of a notion (now discredited) that they were killed in carriage and dumped.

I see no logic to any discussion of a potential different MO in this case.

Phil H

Hi Phil,

If you had happened to read the post I made a while back..(no offense taken, it seems no-one else did either,.... you would have noted that the lack of blood at the Bucks Row scene DID cause some contemporary officials to wonder whether she had been dropped at that spot....and it was considered again with Eddowes.

Cheers

[Lechmere]

I'll get back to you when the level of debate emerges from 'same to you with brass knobs on' and issues are discussed and addressed.

[sdreid]

If you had happened to read the post I made a while back..(no offense taken, it seems no-one else did either,.... you would have noted that the lack of blood at the Bucks Row scene DID cause some contemporary officials to wonder whether she had been dropped at that spot....and it was considered again with Eddowes.

I read it!

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Echo, 1st September 1888—

"It is his [Dr Llewellyn’s] impression that she was not murdered at the spot where her body was found, but that her throat was cut, the dreadful abdominal injuries then inflicted, and that the body was then carried, enveloped in her large, heavy cloak, and thrown outside the gateway at Essex Wharf. Mr. Seccombe, Dr. Llewellyn’s assistant, is of the same opinions, especially, he says, as there was comparatively little blood where the deceased lay."

In the absence of any convincing evidence to the contrary, who or what changed their minds?

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

When they are you stamp your feet and yell 'misrepresentation' Edward.

Your discomfort is telling.

Monty