Why Buck's Row?

[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,

As you wish.

Prince Odongo will be in touch with you shortly.

Regards,

Simon

[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.

[DJA]

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

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

[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

[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]

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

[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!

[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.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

[Elamarna]

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

Indeed why?

However at least make sure your sources don't actually contrict themselve!!


There has been a move for sometime to right off the single killer, and replace it with various option. ALL of which are promoted by personal theories and gross manipulation of the sources. If that upset anyone, and it will, TOUGH.!!

Steve

[Elamarna]

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.)

Hi Herlock,

Yes that's what we should do but few do.
I started my project in response to Christer claiming the abdomenial wounds were first. I honestly believed it would take a few weeks.. how wrong I was 10 months later and still not finished.
And despite all that research I learn new stuff every single day. We have so many experts on particular areas and I am happy to take on board what they day. I will quote Gary on the slaughter men as a prime example. And David on his take on so much. It does not mean I agree 100%, but all ideas are useful and allow us to develop a fuller picture of event's. It's sad that Egos get in the way on occasions.

By the way are you still in London next month?


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Yes that's what we should do but few do.
I started my project in response to Christer claiming the abdomenial wounds were first. I honestly believed it would take a few weeks.. how wrong I was 10 months later and still not finished.
And despite all that research I learn new stuff every single day. We have so many experts on particular areas and I am happy to take on board what they day. I will quote Gary on the slaughter men as a prime example. And David on his take on so much. It does not mean I agree 100%, but all ideas are useful and allow us to develop a fuller picture of event's. It's sad that Egos get in the way on occasions.

By the way are you still in London next month?


Steve

Hi Steve,

Yes I'm in London from 19th until 30th September. It's completely down to when you're free but I'm doing the Jack the Ripper walk starting at Aldgate East (exit 4) on Thursday 28th at 7.00 so maybe we could meet earlier in The Ten Bells at a time to suit you? I'd just need to leave enough time to get to the station (and get directions as I'd probably get lost!)

[Fisherman]

I started my project in response to Christer claiming the abdomenial wounds were first.
Steve

Just a quickie before I go to Norway tomorrow: You seem to have gotten this wrong. I do not claim that the abdominal wounds came first. I claim that it seems that Llewellyn was of that meaning, and I put stock in what he says. I think it fits the overall evidence picture, and if I am asked what I THINK applies, yes, I think that the abdominal wounds preceded the neck wounds.

That is however not the same as any claiming on my behalf that the abdominal wounds must have come first. And to me, this is a very important distinction that so often gets lost when people are trying to understand (or not) what I say and think.

I was never in any position to make any claim at all about the factualities about the matter. Nor did I do so, Steve. I hope you can appreciate that.

Now I´m off again, probably for a number of weeks. When I return, I will put you right on a couple of scores where I think you have gone wrong. Hopefully, your take on the Mizen scam will have gone public by then.

All good things...

[Sam Flynn]

I claim that it seems that Llewellyn was of that meaning, and I put stock in what he says.

Fish stock, obviously