Why Buck's Row?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would have no issue with Simon's idea if the evidence supported it. What he provided did not. Since starting the Bucks Row Project I have learnt ones needs to read all of an article and asses it that way.
The simple point is that this Paper says two different things and thus it is as my friend Pierre would say of low reliability.


Steve

Steve

There is enough that we don't know in this case and enough that we can't possibly know without 'creating' other mysteries. Often because we can't know what individuals were thinking or what their individual motivations were. We have to do what you are doing with the Bucks Row Project. Set out all the available evidence then cross-reference, analyse and make a judgement (without having an agenda.)

[Abby Normal]

Good morning,

Having just read the post from yesterday I am left utterly speechless from some of the lack of reasonable logic used, nor the selective use of sources to support ideas.

Let me be honest here and say I have not read the latest update to Simon's work. This is because I consider that constant updates and recharging for what is to a great extent the same information is not for me in the digital age.

Therefore I can only use the information provided here.

Simon suggests that the body was carried along the passageway, this he supports with part of an article from the Evening News 8th September, this is a journalists report only.
He also supplies a quote from the Manchester Guardian 10th September; however it should be noted that he rejects outright the explanation offered and makes disparaging remarks about any who would consider it.

If there is any other evidence, it is not supplied.

Is there any source data which allows us to examine the suggestion made by Simon?

Well let's see what we do know. From the inquest we have the following:

1. Phillips says there is much blood around the body, this is contrary to what the quote provided by Simon say. He also says there is blood on the fencing and there is NONE in the passageway.

2. Inspector Chandler says there is no blood apart from around the body and on the fencing and wall.

3. The body is at the mortuary before 7am, this is the time Chandler arrives there.


One point we do not know is what time did the Journalist arrive on site and at what point was he allowed to view the passage way? It is I think highly unlikely this was before the body was removed from site.

We have already had one explanation for blood rejected outright, are there others?
Well of course there are:

A. The most obvious explanation is the blood dripped from the body as it was removed down the passageway, if it was in a shell at this point, blood could drip from the underside if it had been placed in blood in the yard or it may just have leaked out.

B. The blood came from the shoes of those who had been in the yard.

C. There was no blood, pure speculation on the part of the Journalist, certainly not unknown, has I have found from the Nichols case.


Let's just take a look at the Evening News and see if there is any more information there.

And yes there is. In a section headed "Special Account" we find the following:

"The latest information goes to show quite clearly that the murder was actually committed in the back-yard of No. 18, Hanbury-street. The front door of this house is never locked at night, as some of the lodgers come home very late at night, and others have to go to their work early in the morning; and for their convenience the door is always left on the latch. "

And in the next paragraph:

"The other theory, that the murder was committed in the street, and then concealed in the yard of No. 18, is disproved by the fact that, whereas there is a horrible mass of clotted blood lying on the spot where the body was found there are no blood-stains whatever, either in the passage of the house or anywhere else in the neighbourhood. "


Now this report gets the address wrong quoting both 28 and 18 ( in both quotes above) Hanbury street. However such mistakes in these early accounts often are made.


It seems clear that the original quote supplied is of very low reliability and why Simon prefers such sources I struggle to understand.

Finally the comments that working on the streets does not mean some form of at least casual prostitution are on the face of somewhat strange.



Steve

Hi el
but why go with the facts and evidence when rumor, innuendo and conspiracy is soooo much more interesting!

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Couldn't agree more. It seems overwhelmingly obvious that there were no bloodstains in the passageway. Why indeed would the killer attack Chapman in the street when people were out and about (going to work etc) then drag her into the yard with the possibility of her shouting out? Also, if Cadosche is reliable, Chapman seemed to make very little noise seeing as she'd just been dragged into the yard against her will? It makes no sense for a killer who managed to avoid capture to be so needlessly reckless.

As for the notion that the victims weren't prostitutes (whether full-time or occasional) I can't see how this can be taken seriously. It's a point, however, that helps if you wish to show that there was no pattern and no one killer. Pure wish-thinking.

I would have no issue with Simon's idea if the evidence supported it. What he provided did not. Since starting the Bucks Row Project I have learnt ones needs to read all of an article and asses it that way.
The simple point is that this Paper says two different things and thus it is as my friend Pierre would say of low reliability.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Steve,

Couldn't agree more. It seems overwhelmingly obvious that there were no bloodstains in the passageway. Why indeed would the killer attack Chapman in the street when people were out and about (going to work etc) then drag her into the yard with the possibility of her shouting out? Also, if Cadosche is reliable, Chapman seemed to make very little noise seeing as she'd just been dragged into the yard against her will? It makes no sense for a killer who managed to avoid capture to be so needlessly reckless.

As for the notion that the victims weren't prostitutes (whether full-time or occasional) I can't see how this can be taken seriously. It's a point, however, that helps if you wish to show that there was no pattern and no one killer. Pure wish-thinking.

[Elamarna]

Good morning,

Having just read the post from yesterday I am left utterly speechless from some of the lack of reasonable logic used, nor the selective use of sources to support ideas.

Let me be honest here and say I have not read the latest update to Simon's work. This is because I consider that constant updates and recharging for what is to a great extent the same information is not for me in the digital age.

Therefore I can only use the information provided here.

Simon suggests that the body was carried along the passageway, this he supports with part of an article from the Evening News 8th September, this is a journalists report only.
He also supplies a quote from the Manchester Guardian 10th September; however it should be noted that he rejects outright the explanation offered and makes disparaging remarks about any who would consider it.

If there is any other evidence, it is not supplied.

Is there any source data which allows us to examine the suggestion made by Simon?

Well let's see what we do know. From the inquest we have the following:

1. Phillips says there is much blood around the body, this is contrary to what the quote provided by Simon say. He also says there is blood on the fencing and there is NONE in the passageway.

2. Inspector Chandler says there is no blood apart from around the body and on the fencing and wall.

3. The body is at the mortuary before 7am, this is the time Chandler arrives there.


One point we do not know is what time did the Journalist arrive on site and at what point was he allowed to view the passage way? It is I think highly unlikely this was before the body was removed from site.

We have already had one explanation for blood rejected outright, are there others?
Well of course there are:

A. The most obvious explanation is the blood dripped from the body as it was removed down the passageway, if it was in a shell at this point, blood could drip from the underside if it had been placed in blood in the yard or it may just have leaked out.

B. The blood came from the shoes of those who had been in the yard.

C. There was no blood, pure speculation on the part of the Journalist, certainly not unknown, has I have found from the Nichols case.


Let's just take a look at the Evening News and see if there is any more information there.

And yes there is. In a section headed "Special Account" we find the following:

"The latest information goes to show quite clearly that the murder was actually committed in the back-yard of No. 18, Hanbury-street. The front door of this house is never locked at night, as some of the lodgers come home very late at night, and others have to go to their work early in the morning; and for their convenience the door is always left on the latch. "

And in the next paragraph:

"The other theory, that the murder was committed in the street, and then concealed in the yard of No. 18, is disproved by the fact that, whereas there is a horrible mass of clotted blood lying on the spot where the body was found there are no blood-stains whatever, either in the passage of the house or anywhere else in the neighbourhood. "


Now this report gets the address wrong quoting both 28 and 18 ( in both quotes above) Hanbury street. However such mistakes in these early accounts often are made.


It seems clear that the original quote supplied is of very low reliability and why Simon prefers such sources I struggle to understand.

Finally the comments that working on the streets does not mean some form of at least casual prostitution are on the face of somewhat strange.



Steve

[DJA]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chokehold

Dead bodies tend to stink a house up,however reckon that's what happened.
Meh,life.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Why drag or carry anyone anywhere ? Dragging someone through a passageway in a choke hold to the backyard of Hanbury St only to kill her there increases the risk of her shouting out, or if carried being seen. And why drag the victim out of a house on Mitre Sq only to kill her in said Sq ? The same logic applies, and wouldn't it be safer in the house. Also if the police kept tabs or arrested every poor woman who had to prostitute herself from time to time in Whitechapel the jails and police files would be overflowing. These where very desperate times indeed.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Joshua,

As you wish.

Prince Odongo will be in touch with you shortly.

Regards,

Simon

[Joshua Rogan]

This probably won't surprise you, Simon, but I don't see anything too implausible in that explanation. It's at least as believable as the doctor missing the bloodstains, or for some inexplicable reason lying about not seeing any. If they only appeared after he made his search then that explains both his statement and the news reports.
If the packing case is too hard to swallow, how about the blood was deposited in the passage as the body was moved, or on someone's boots as they trudged out?

I'll take a cheque for the £27m.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Joshua,

David's was a really bad point. But never mind.

The Manchester Guardian, 10th September 1888, confirmed the bloodstains in the passage of 29 Hanbury Street whilst offering the most sublimely ridiculous explanation for their presence—

“There were some marks of blood observable in the passage, but it is now known that these were caused during the work of removal of some packing cases, the edges of which accidentally came in contact with the blood upon the spot from which the unhappy victim was removed.”

And if you believe that, I know a recently deposed Nigerian prince who is eager to put £27 million into your bank account.

Regards,

Simon

[Herlock Sholmes]

Except that, as I posted earlier, Dr Phillips said he made a search of the passage and found no blood. I suspect the report that Simon posted was inaccurate, like the reports of blood on the fence at 25 or of the message left by the killer.

It's possible she was carried unconscious through the passage, of course (or was given a piggy back by her killer, or even that they romped to the back yard in Fatal Attraction style). But it's always easier to get a living person to move than a dead one. And she had already said "yes", according to Mrs Long.

Sorry Joshua

I missed your post.

[David Orsam]

The police did not recognise any of the C5. Nor did they recognise them once they had their names.

This is such a bad point.

Did "The police", whatever you mean by that, all troop into the mortuary one by one to try and identify the bodies of these victims?

Identity was proved by someone who knew the deceased well. No-one asked every single police officer to visit the mortuary to see if they recognised any of these women from the streets. Such an effort would have been pointless in any case unless the officers also knew the real names of the women and could positively identify them by their real name.

Whether the women were prostitutes or not was not the main issue to be resolved in the investigation (and the answer could, in any event, be gleaned from people who knew them, as occurred).

[DJA]

Hi Dave,

But is it likely that he would have killed her out on the street in the early hours of the morning with people like Elizabeth Long and others around going to work etc? Surely it's overwhelmingly likely that she was killed in situ and any blood found in the passageway came from the killer as he made his escape?

Basically why he would "choke hold" her and drag her out the back.
There was no blood in the passage.

Chapman was probably led off Hanbury Street to get her away from prying eyes,possibly with the offer of accommodation now and money at a later time.

Reckon Eddowes was dragged into Mitre Square from one of the Mitre Street houses.

[David Orsam]

Amelia Farmer did not testify that Chapman "took to prostitution at night."

Of course she did Simon. It was, of course, a delicate subject but it was perfectly clear. Let's look at it again shall we:

The Coroner - Is it correct that she got money in the streets? (i.e. Is it correct that she was a prostitute?)

The Witness - I am afraid that she was not particular how she earned her living. She has told me that she was out late at night sometimes." (i.e. I'm afraid she was and I know this because she told me.)

It's not even controversial!

[David Orsam]

Did the police at the time keep extensive files on every prostitute?

Certainly not. Even if some individual police officers would have recognised her from the streets that would have been of no use if they didn't know her name and I'm certainly not aware of the entire H Division trooping into the mortuary to take a look.

What if she'd never been arrested? Avoiding the police would have been a primary skill for a prostitute (and still is, for all I know that is )

Of course, you are absolutely right. Simon's big point is a complete non-point.