Why Buck's Row?

[Hair Bear]

Interesting post.
I think that from the Bakers Row/ Whites Row area the Ripper walked up Hanbury Street.
For the obvious reason that a week later and at about that time he was to be found at the top of end of Hanbury Street, where he met Chapman.

Wouldn't that have taken him past Mizen?

[Jon Guy]

Wouldn't that have taken him past Mizen?

Possibly, and other patrolling policemen, but it wouldn`t have mattered if Mizen was unaware of the body in Bucks Row.

[Pierre]

Possibly, and other patrolling policemen, but it wouldn`t have mattered if Mizen was unaware of the body in Bucks Row.

Or if he was dressed in a specific type of dress.

[Elamarna]

Or if he was dressed in a specific type of dress.

Nice try to turn it to your advantage, and push your ideas.

However, if he were dressed in the fashion you believe he was, that would highlight him to others of the same profession, another police official passing Mizen lets say, on his beat, but one not known to Mizen as a local officer/official, that is after all what you believe, that he was not a London man, be that City or Met..


That leads to the conclusion that not only senior officers covered up, but lower ones as well.



Steve

[Pierre]

Nice try to turn it to your advantage, and push your ideas.

However, if he were dressed in the fashion you believe he was, that would highlight him to others of the same profession, another police official passing Mizen lets say, on his beat, but one not known to Mizen as a local officer/official, that is after all what you believe, that he was not a London man, be that City or Met..


That leads to the conclusion that not only senior officers covered up, but lower ones as well.

Steve

Not a matter of "covering up", just a matter of ignoring "reliable" persons.

After all, people have always wondered how he could manage to escape.

[Hair Bear]

Possibly, and other patrolling policemen, but it wouldn`t have mattered if Mizen was unaware of the body in Bucks Row.

My point is that once Mizen was told there was a body, had someone passed him just prior to Cross and Paul appearing on the scene, he would have recounted it. Since he didn't, I'm assuming that nobody passed him (hence my belief that the Ripper returned the Whitechapel Road).

[Elamarna]

Not a matter of "covering up", just a matter of ignoring "reliable" persons.

After all, people have always wondered how he could manage to escape.

He would know that this man was not one of the team, This was before officers from other areas had been drafted in.

In this case why would he be viewed as being "reliable", he would be in the wrong place, with no reason to be there.

It would be spoken about.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;398981]

He would know that this man was not one of the team, This was before officers from other areas had been drafted in.

And would a policeman from another part of the country expect to be stopped and questioned, and if he did, would he expect to be able to convince the police questioning him that he had nothing to do with the crime?

How could we answer such difficult questions about "expectiations" without speculations?

Could it be answered by the statements if Mizen and Arnold, who were not policemen questioning someone but speaking to someone dressed as a policeman?

In this case why would he be viewed as being "reliable", he would be in the wrong place, with no reason to be there.

Everyone who was at a place had a reason to be there. Would it be easier for a policeman to explain his reason than for anyone else?

It would be spoken about.

Yes, indeed. Spoken about on the street to Mizen, later changed at an inquest, perhaps (!) silenced at an inquest and after that spoken about at a newspaper and later changed when witness was questioned by the police!.

Regards, Pierre

[Henry Flower]

That's all wonderful supposition Pierre, but it doesn't get you past the awkward fact that a cover-up must've taken place at all levels, and must've been something that many would've been made aware of.

Is that what you contend?

[DJA]

Doubt Cross had anything to do with it,however reckon there was a big cover up.

[MysterySinger]

I like to think that it wasn't near his place of residence (though concede I may be wrong). I also like the blitz-style attack, but I'm not so sure. Nichols known movements place her further West of the crime scene. It's also clear that she touted for business along Whitechapel road. I get the impression that her plan was to repeatedly wander East along Whitechapel and then back again, only moving off Whitechapel once she was at Osborn Street. I think she met the Ripper whilst she was as far East as she was moving, and they walked to Buck's Row. Notice that the murder took place in front of the gates and not a house. I think that they walked to that point, and the Ripper would have looked behind him towards White's Row, looked in front of him towards Brady street, have seen nobody, so then decided to kill her. He then took off back towards White's Row, escaping down the street they probably came up (Court), at which point Cross was entering Buck's Row.

The last known sighting of Nichols (as far as I'm aware) was at 2:30am on Whitechapel Road, opposite the church and on the corner of Osborne Street. Upon being asked by Jane Oran to go back with her to 18 Thrawl Street, Nichols refused and wanted to go to a place on Flower & Dean Street where men and women were allowed to sleep. Could she have met someone and intended to take him there and - the question for someone with more knowledge of the geography of the area than I - would Buck's Row have been a logical route from where she was seen towards Flower & Dean Street?

[Joshua Rogan]

The last known sighting of Nichols (as far as I'm aware) was at 2:30am on Whitechapel Road, opposite the church and on the corner of Osborne Street. Upon being asked by Jane Oran to go back with her to 18 Thrawl Street, Nichols refused and wanted to go to a place on Flower & Dean Street where men and women were allowed to sleep. Could she have met someone and intended to take him there and - the question for someone with more knowledge of the geography of the area than I - would Buck's Row have been a logical route from where she was seen towards Flower & Dean Street?

Not really. Both Thrawl St and Flower & Dean St are most directly reached by heading north(ish) up Osborn St, whereas Buck's Row is half a mile away along Witechapel Road. There's plenty of pubs in the area though, so if she was looking for company she could easily have wandered that far and been on her way back with a prospective bed-fellow, but it's definitely not a direct route from where she was last sighted.

[Elamarna]

A point which seems to have been either missed or discounted is contained in the Official Police Report by Abberline and Swanson dated 19th September 1888:


“Bucks Row is a narrow quiet thoroughfare frequented*by prostitutes for immoral purposes at night and no doubt the yard of 29 Hanbury Street has been used for a similar purpose.”

I have found nothing to support this so far; however it could tie in with Paul's comments on the danger of the street, and Mrs Greens somewhat over the top insistence that there were no disorderly houses in the street, and women were not seen about. This of course despite a juror saying there were several such establishments in Thomas Street.

Just a possibility.


Steve

[Pierre]

A point which seems to have been either missed or discounted is contained in the Official Police Report by Abberline and Swanson dated 19th September 1888:


“Bucks Row is a narrow quiet thoroughfare frequented*by prostitutes for immoral purposes at night and no doubt the yard of 29 Hanbury Street has been used for a similar purpose.”

I have found nothing to support this so far; however it could tie in with Paul's comments on the danger of the street, and Mrs Greens somewhat over the top insistence that there were no disorderly houses in the street, and women were not seen about. This of course despite a juror saying there were several such establishments in Thomas Street.

Just a possibility.

Steve

Hi Steve,

It is hardly a very qualified hypothesis that the police knew which streets were frequented by prostitutes.

But Jack the Ripper did not target "prostitutes" as a priority. If they were prostitutes, that was just something which was a posiibility and sometimes a fact for these women who were walking the streets at night.

One could make a list of characteristics for the type of women he was looking for. And being a prostitute was not their most prominent feature.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

It is hardly a very qualified hypothesis that the police knew which streets were frequented by prostitutes.

But Jack the Ripper did not target "prostitutes" as a priority. If they were prostitutes, that was just something which was a posiibility and sometimes a fact for these women who were walking the streets at night.

One could make a list of characteristics for the type of women he was looking for. And being a prostitute was not their most prominent feature.

Pierre

I agree Pierre,

It is just a possible reason why Nichols was in Bucks Row. The Question in the thread.
According to that report the POLICE believed it was a place where prostitutes went. That does not mean they are correct of course, only that they believed it to be so.
It seems that night at least Nichols was working, and a reason why she may have ended up in Bucks Row.

One has to say that the tendency shown by Mrs Green, which basically amounts to her saying this is a nice street, no women working round here, motive to make the area appear better, can be seen as being just a tad over the top.

Given the comment in the report, it cannot be ruled out that she took someone there has it was a placed used for such activity. However it's not something I would spend too much time debating.


On your final point, who knows? You obviously think you do, I await details patiently.

Steve