was Nichols murdered where found?

[Mr Lucky]

This is only from the bill ammending several early Acts regarding the Great Eastern Railway and not the Act itself, however it makes interesting reading in that it appears that the Railway company can alter gas supplies as it sees fit.


‘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.’

And later in the same bill

‘And it is proposed to authorise the lateral and vertical deviations from the line and level of the proposed Railways and Works as shown upon the Plans and sections hereinafter mentioned and to stop up remove alter or divert temporarily or permanently all Turnpike and other roads and Highways Railways Tramways Bridges Rivers Streams Canals and other Watercourses, Telegraphic wire tubes and apparatus tunnels subways Sewer Pipes Buildings and Works of any description which it may be necessary or convenient to stop up remove alter or divert for any of the purposes of the intended Railways or works.’

W. H Shaw, solicitor for the bill 10th November 1875

[Monty]

Phil,

By your own admittance your understanding lacks when it comes to procedure and protocol of the period.

So how one can state errors were made without understanding these protocols and procedures is very perplexing.

Monty

[Phil H]

Monty - I don't think Lechmere says much more than I said in a previous post of my own (the long response to Simon) - his own pet notions apart.

Phil H

[RavenDarkendale]

As has been already stated, JtR was an "opportunity killer". This means he took victims not by previous choice but by the person being in an area where he felt he could kill and escape. If we accept the Nichols murder as being committed by the Chapman, Eddows murderer, then she wouldn't have been moved.

Today, analysis of blood spatter would tell the tale. But I think they had enough evidence to conclude that she died on the spot.

God Bless

Darkendale

[Lechmere]

Thanks for that phil - but I'm not surprised

[Monty]

Lechmere - as you know, I don't wholly agree with your Cross/Lechmere theory (though I can see why it is attractive) but in this case I must concur with the majority of your remarks.

Phil H

Really Phil?

Im very surprised.

Monty

[Phil H]

Lechmere - as you know, I don't wholly agree with your Cross/Lechmere theory (though I can see why it is attractive) but in this case I must concur with the majority of your remarks.

Phil H

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lechmere

Then we have llewellyn missing the abdominal wounds ( as they were hidden by the culprit).

Dr Llewellyn didn`t miss any abdominal wounds.

He was called to a woman who had her throat cut, he pronounced her dead and then gave the go ahead for her to be removed to the mortuary for the post mortem later that day.

[Lechmere]

Simon
It is interesting that you picked up on the things that don't add up with regard to Bucks Row.
To my mind they are explained by the police covering up individual low level errors, skiving etc and higher level incompetence.
Then we have the dissembling testimony (and his influence on Paul) of Charles lechmere - of course I think he did it which explains his motive.
Then we have hysterical and so unhelpful witnesses claiming to have heard cries and murmours.
Then we have llewellyn missing the abdominal wounds ( as they were hidden by the culprit).
Then we have layers of inaccuracy over this murder shovelled on by 'ripperologists' - which continues to this day.

[Phil H]

Much appreciated Simon. Will do.

Phil H

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil H,

Send me a PM with your email address.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil H]

I think you are on to a lifelong and ultimately frustrating search, Simon.

My instinct is that the Nichols' murder is perhaps the most straighforward of the lot. And i don't think i am being complacent when i say that - that is just my response to the evidence as i see it.

I identified contradictions

There are surely contradictions in all the Ripper murders - probably in every case. People (even officials such as policemen) genuinely perceive things differently, it neither implies conspiracy or IMHO should necessarily excite suspicion.

conflicts of timing and testimony

All the timings in 1888 are on shakey ground, are they not. Without radio clocks and accurate universal timepieces, it all depended on whether a man's watch ran fast or slow (assuming he had one) or whether he heard a clock chime - and how accurate that was.

On testimony - as I said above - people perceive the same thing differently and with no ulterior motive. What we see depends on our experience, state of mind, observational skills and tiredness - even the quality of light or lack of it. The brain strives to make sense of what it sees and adds details that were not, in fact, present.

The whole of the ancient world, and I believe much of the Victorian world, went by the most (to our way of thinking) crude timekeeping. "I'll meet you before the sun is at it's height." Ancient Rome went for years with a centrally placed sundial calibrated for Alexandria!! A Mrs Long/Mrs Darrell depended on church or brewery clocks - and what if she misheard a quarter for the half?

I grew up in an English cathedral city and my life was punctuated by the striking of the cathedral bells for the hour and the quarters, from 7.00am to around 10.45 at night (it used to be all night but it disturbed visiting justices of assize!! I didn't have to look for a clock because you heard the time - but if distracted, or the wind was contrary, you might be unsure which quarter you had heard. Time was vague in 1888 for everyone.

, policemen and other witnesses being economical with the truth .

I'd need to know the instances before being able to comment.

. . in fact I found more about the Bucks Row scenario which was unresolved and decidedly suspect.

But suspect for what? An unfortunate was murdered in a sordid back alley - the police investigated, but hardly expected it would be one of the most famous (and minuitely studied) murders in history.

I look at the same evidence as you and see banality, men in the early hours being slipshod and embarrassed when later called to account; a less than effective doctor. I see little unresolved, little that is inconsistent - except that we never caught the culprit so cannot know every detail.

Since writing the article nothing has surfaced to change my mind, and I therefore continue to probe and question.

I respect your right to do so wholly, but would not take the same view peersonally.

I think it's safe to say that events in Bucks Row did not unfold in the historically-accepted manner,

And I'd put quite a lot of money on the accepted version being 90%-95% accurate.

Can you point me to a copy of your article, I'd be interested to read it. From my first days reading about the Ripper in the 60s and 70s, Bucks Row has always interested me the most. I found it the most atmospheric (with Mitre Square) when I visited it long before the modern developments, and Leonard Matters - one of the first authors I read - saw the street as it was in 1888 almost exactly.

Phil H

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil H,

Four years ago I wrote a long article in Rip 90 which discussed in detail the circumstances and immediate aftermath of Polly Nichols' murder. I identified contradictions, conflicts of timing and testimony, policemen and other witnesses being economical with the truth . . . in fact I found more about the Bucks Row scenario which was unresolved and decidedly suspect. Since writing the article nothing has surfaced to change my mind, and I therefore continue to probe and question. I think it's safe to say that events in Bucks Row did not unfold in the historically-accepted manner, but as I am not working to a strict agenda or pet theory the matter of where I think the truth lies is one of those black-or-white questions which as yet remains maddeningly impossible to answer.

Have a safe, warm Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil H]

To try to get at the truth.

I thought we'd got there! What is new, what is considered? Where is the previous balance apparently wrong? Is there new evidence?

To me this raising this already satisfactorily "resolved" issue without an appropriate hook is like going round and round on a roundabout for no other reason than its fun!

Where do you think the truth lies then?

Phil H

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil H,

What is the point of resurrecting all this again now?

Simple. To try to get at the truth.

Regards,

Simon