The Bucks Row Project part 2

[Herlock Sholmes]

Agree and it is sad. But it's due to pig headedNess by mainly admin there.
Looking at good things from it. I remember how we were humiliated by one of the greatest teams for years. Even then strange selections. Daniel and Clarke left out for Croft (fine bowler but not in the class of the other two.)

Steve

They wouldn't say no to having Wayne Daniel and Sylvester Clarke in their side right now. Likewise a Richards, Greenidge or Lloyd etc. It still seems strange say 'this Windies side has a pretty tame bowling attack!' Internal politics have had a big effect on Windies cricket (it's even impacted the Aussies). Gayle's playing in the one-dayers apparently. At least we have Anderson's 500 wickets to look forward to even if we don't have a very competitive series.

[kjab3112]

After the last three days, we might (just might) have a competitive series

[Herlock Sholmes]

After the last three days, we might (just might) have a competitive series

Looks like I spoke too soon. The Windies are making a fight of it. We need to score 400 to be in with a shout I think. Moeen Ali can make up for dropping the easiest catch ever by making a big score

[Elamarna]

Bucks Row Project part 2 post 18 - Baxter

[Elamarna]

Bucks Row Project part 2 post 18a - Baxter

[Elamarna]

Bucks Row Project part 2 post 18b - Baxter





The first thing to mention when looking at Coroner Baxter is that some of his comments appear in other tables and not here and I shall be referring back to those.

Baxter appears to be constantly frustrated by the responses of both some Witnesses and Police.

Lets start by examining his comments with regards to the undressing of the body and the clothing:

He asks specifically who removed the clothing and who authorized such in Reports 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6.
The responses he receives are those of men denying giving instructions and taking no responsibility for events. (Reports: 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6).

This one should point out is odd, in that Helson says he was present when the clothing was removed and one assumes he gave the instruction. (Helson Table, Reports: 1, 4, 9 & 12.).
It is also odd that on the 17th Spratling, changes his account of what happened (Spratling Table, Reports: 8, 9 & 11 compared to Police Table Reports 1 & 3 ).

However Baxter appears to just accept all this changing of story with out any comment.
He is not so interested in who gave instruction, (Reports: 5 & 6) but that someone should have recorded the removal. His main aim is to determine the condition and position of clothing (Reports: 3, 4, 5 & 6); And why the men who did the undressing are not present and that they should be.(Reports 1 & 2).

This can also be seen by again looking at the Spratling Tables (http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=122
) :

“Officials should have been present to record condition of clothing. (Reports: 2, 3, 11 &15).
Needs to know position of clothing. (Reports: 8, 9, 14 & 15).
The condition of the clothing is important. ( Reports:10,12,15)
Baxter says that the men who removed the clothing need to be present, Report 5.”

This is only solved to a degree when Abberline suggests sending for the clothing.

Baxter’s comments on the Mortuary attendants are very telling,

He dismisses Mann, due to his supposed epilepsy, a sign of thinking at the time, more than of Baxter himself and his final comment directed to the police after the questioning of the two attendants:

“we cannot do more”

showing his frustration with not just the inconsistent testimony of the witnesses but of the police as well. (Mortuary Table Report 3) .


He also has a great deal of frustration with the Slaughter man Tomkins, firstly over if women came to the yard at times (Slaughter House Men Table, Reports 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 & 16); and later over who was in Bucks row when he arrived (Slaughter House Men Table,Reports 2, 5, 6, 8, 14 & 16.).

There appears to be an ongoing battle between Tomkins and Baxter to get clear answers, it has been pointed out that they may have met previously at the inquest into Tomkins father, and this may have had an effect on the exchange, nevertheless it is clear by the end of the testimony Baxter is again frustrated.
He appears to again be frustrated when questioning Spratling over why not all the local residents had been questioned some 2.5 weeks after the murder (Police Table, Reports 1 & 3), and that Spratling was more concerned with finding the weapon than the presence of blood

"You are looking for the weapon and I am looking for the blood," said the Coroner rather sharply.

(Police Table, Report 3).


Baxter’s final summing up is interesting.

Firstly he says the time of discover can be fixed to close to 3.45am because of:
“so much independent data “ (Reports 7,8 , 9, 10 & 13).

This by definition surely cannot mean it is based on the timing of just one man, but on the combined timings of several. That would seem to favour the timings of the 3 police constables over that of Robert Paul.

He also says that the presence of Slaughter men working near by may have helped the killer leave the scene without being suspected due to such often having blood on them (Reports: 7,8,10 & 11).
He discusses all the recent murders , Smith, Tabram, Chapman and Nichols, and says there are some similarities between all, but there are distinct differences between the first two victims and the last two (7,8,10,11,13),who are very similar, that both may have been stunned by blows to the face,
and may have been committed by same man. (Reports: 7,8,9,10,11,12 & 13).

He comments that no residents heard any disturbance and yet the murder occurred where the body was found.

He also takes what is a clear position on the wounds and disagrees with the comments of Llewellyn (Reports 7,8,10, 11 & 12), it is argued that he is not a Medic, and that the View of Llewellyn should be final here, however it is not as clear as some argue, and this we will look at in far greater detail in Part 3.

One final point that must not be missed, while examining Lechmere on the 3rd questions are asked as to the nature of the exchange between Lechmere, Paul and Mizen. The answer is a disagreement; yet on the 17th when Paul is questioned and gives his testimony, any such similar question to clarify the situation is missing. This strongly suggests that a conclusion as been reached, possibly in private about what was said, and that Paul’s testimony was not needed.

[Elamarna]

Bucks Row Project part 2 post 19 - Press

[Elamarna]

Bucks Row Project part 2 post 19a - Press

[Elamarna]

Bucks Row Project part 2 post 19b - Press











Just a few brief comments here on the press in general, one could go into very in depth analysis and study of these; However I choose to just point out a few things and let others looks at these in depth themselves.

Report 1 says the clothing was saturated with blood

Report 2 say blood “flowing profusely,” there is however nothing in the report to suggest this is a report from an eyewitness. There are also statements which are repeated in other papers and which are contrary to evidence from later in the investigation and the inquest. These include that a severe struggle had taken place and that her clothing was both torn and cut.
The report also refers to Bucks Row, Thomas street, suggesting this was where the Row began and the direction Neil was walking.

Report 3 says Neil finds her at 4.30, and that the bowels were found to be protruding in Bucks Row. It also claims the murder took place about 2am, and that the body was taken to Bucks Row after death. Finally he claims she had been kicked in face by attacker.

Report 4 again says “profusely,” and again offers no support for this claim, it is not presented as an interview or quote. We have the claim that the body was lying in a pool of blood and that the clothing were cut and torn.
We have the same comments about Bucks Row as in report 2.

Report 7 carries both “profusely” and “in a pool of blood” it suggests there are signs of a severe struggle and says cloths cut and torn.

We can already see a pattern emerging, probably from one or two common sources, lots of genuine mistakes such as the clothing cut and torn and that there were clear signs of a struggle. Any claims in these early reports need to be treated most carefully.


Report 8 is really most odd it carries the story that Neil with help of scavengers carried body to mortuary, and then he, the scavengers and the mortuary keeper undressed the body.

Report 9 says Mr Seccombe, the assistant of Dr Llewellyn is of the belief that the body was taken to the scene.

Report 17, the Lloyds Weekly News of the 2nd gives far more detail, it again says “Blood was flowing profusely”; however it seems clear this is taken from earlier reports. The Paper in several articles presents interviews with locals and uses quotation marks when using quotes, such is not used for the use of “profusely”
We also have the story of the earlier possible attack in Brady street in some detail.

Reports 18 & 19 are the first to suggest a time for the beat,saying it is very short and would take only 12 minutes to walk. No details are given of the beat, and one wonders if this refers th the beats before the death of Tabram,after which it seems they were changed.
The report also says that neither Mizen or Thain had seen anyone leaving the scene to attract attention!! This seems completely at odds with what Mizen is to later claim.

Report 20 claims more than one person is involved in the murder, it hints at slaughter men but does not actually name, it is also the very same edition which send a report to Mumford to apparently try and get him to open up.

Report 22 repeats much of earlier stories, including signs of struggle, it also says that nothing above an ordinary brawl or disturbance was heard by residents, which appears to be at odds with comments about it being unusually quite that night.

Report 24 gives an impression of Bucks Row being very respectable and not dangerous, and Winthrop being much worse and that the murder done there and body brought to Bucks Row, again pointing at Slaughter House men without naming them.


Report 26 again says the murder took place elsewhere and claims pools of blood leading to body.

Report 27 attacks earlier comments on the character of Winthrop.

Finally Report 29 gives details of the police beats, these appear to have changed following the murder of Tabram. When these are measured they seem within reason for a Police Beat, although it must be said that the Beat of Thain appears very long compared to the others. We shall consider this again in Part 3.


One could look at the attitude shown by elements of the press to the police, and it seems clear from reading the sections of Part 2 on the Baxter, The Police and the Mortuary that the Police may have been open to some justified criticism. That they responded to these possible early failings is something which should be noted, by the time of the Chapman inquest they were performing much better than they had been only a week before.
However that was not my aim, if other want to go further there is plenty here for them to look at, and also many more articles I have not included due to space constraints.

It seems clear that there were many papers who just printed the same as others, particularly those whom relied on agency reporters, rather than there own.
Its also clear at first that there was great suspicion on the 3 men at the Slaughter house, and the press appear to have pushed this hard.


We have course have the isolated stories such as that of Neil and street Scavenger carrying the body to the mortuary, no mention of Llewellyn and then suggesting that Neil is involved in undressing the body. An extremely odd report to say the least and one is left to wonder where it came from, there is nothing in any other source to even hint at such events.

Overall I hope this section if nothing else gives a good overall view of the type of reporting at the time of the Bucks Row murder.


And that brings us to the end of Part 2 of The Bucks Row Project, it has been a very tiring process and has helped me in rejecting some ideas, accepting others and even producing a new take on one issue.
I do hope others even if they do not agree with my comments find the setting of the sources in one place, and broken into useful sections, helpful with their research.

I am writing up part 3 now, but some areas will be left open for a few weeks at least to see if any more suggestions or criticism comes in.

Part 3 will no doubt be far more controversial to some, and again it will be posted as separate sections so that response is easier.

I expect to not be posting until mid-late October at the earliest and maybe not until November, there is a lot to write up, rewrite and possibly reject and discard.


Steve Blomer 30/08/2017

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;427453]

Dear Steve,

I am struggling to understand what you mean by all this:

One final point that must not be missed, while examining Lechmere on the 3rd questions are asked as to the nature of the exchange between Lechmere, Paul and Mizen. The answer is a disagreement; yet on the 17th when Paul is questioned and gives his testimony, any such similar question to clarify the situation is missing. This strongly suggests that a conclusion as been reached, possibly in private about what was said, and that Paul’s testimony was not needed.

Problem 1:

The answer is a disagreement;

What do you mean by this? What "answer"?

Problem 2:

This strongly suggests that a conclusion as been reached, possibly in private about what was said, and that Paul’s testimony was not needed.

What are the sources for that hypothesis?

Why do you think it is "strongly" suggested?

Pierre

[Elamarna]

Dear Steve,

I am struggling to understand what you mean by all this:


Problem 1:

What do you mean by this? What "answer"?

Really not sure why you are struggling with that Pierre.

Lechmere was asked if he had told Mizen he was wanted in Bucks Row by another Policeman. He said NO.
That is he disagreed with the testimony of Mizen.

Problem 2:

What are the sources for that hypothesis?

Why do you think it is "strongly" suggested?

Pierre

The sources used are the Police report of 19th September, which completely ignores the issue of Mizen's claim.
In addition I use the inquest reports of the testimony of Mizen and Lechmere and how those differ.

If the question was still open with regards to which version was believed by those in authority, then Paul needed to be asked for his account.
Paul could have agreed with either version or say he was unsure of what was said, the theory proposed by Fisherman is that Paul did not hear what was said by Lechmere to Mizen.

However such information was not requested, no clarification was sought or asked for. That suggests that such clarification was not needed, a conclusion on which view to accept had already been made.

We did discuss this very issue only a week or so ago I think. Nothing has changed.
If you have a different interpretation of why he was not asked if Mizen was told he was wanted by another officer, I am listening.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;427490]

Really not sure why you are struggling with that Pierre.

Lechmere was asked if he had told Mizen he was wanted in Bucks Row by another Policeman. He said NO.
That is he disagreed with the testimony of Mizen.

OK.

The sources used are the Police report of 19th September, which completely ignores the issue of Mizen's claim.
In addition I use the inquest reports of the testimony of Mizen and Lechmere and how those differ.

If the question was still open with regards to which version was believed by those in authority, then Paul needed to be asked for his account.
Paul could have agreed with either version or say he was unsure of what was said, the theory proposed by Fisherman is that Paul did not hear what was said by Lechmere to Mizen.

However such information was not requested, no clarification was sought or asked for. That suggests that such clarification was not needed, a conclusion on which view to accept had already been made.

You suggest that "clarification was not needed".

But since Mizen exclusively referred to Cross for the information he got on 31 August it is obvious that he does not refer to any information from Paul.

That is what we have from the past in the existing sources.

Therefore you must ask the sources if the police had any possibility to ask Paul to get "clarification", i.e. was Paul able to tell the police what Cross had told the police, i.e. Mizen?

And you have to do this before you postulate that x happened and > clarification was not needed, since there are no sources for "x happened and > clarification was not needed", while there are sources for "was Paul able to tell the police what Cross had told the police, i.e. Mizen?".

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;427493]

OK.



You suggest that "clarification was not needed".

But since Mizen exclusively referred to Cross for the information he got on 31 August it is obvious that he does not refer to any information from Paul.

That is what we have from the past in the existing sources.

Therefore you must ask the sources if the police had any possibility to ask Paul to get "clarification", i.e. was Paul able to tell the police what Cross had told the police, i.e. Mizen?

And you have to do this before you postulate that x happened and > clarification was not needed, since there are no sources for "x happened and > clarification was not needed", while there are sources for "was Paul able to tell the police what Cross had told the police, i.e. Mizen?".

Cheers, Pierre

We have an encounter between 3 men, confirmed by seperate sources, that is 3 inquest testimonies and one admittedly less reliable press interview. However that reliability does not I feel extend to if he was actually there or not.

Just because Mizen only mentions Paul in passing that does not make Paul's presence at the encounter invalid, indeed it confirms it, nor does it challenge Paul's recollection.
There is no reason to suggest that Paul was not capable of supplying information on an encounter of which he was a part.

We cannot know what Paul would have said, however the Lloyds article suggests he may not have agreed with Mizen's version.


So in reply to your question did the Police have the possability to ask Paul to get clarification the answer is that as part of the encounter according to the sources, yes they could have.
If he was believed is a different matter, The issue is he was not asked at all.


It's not about Paul telling the Police anything, he is giving inquest testimony.

And I note you do not provide any alternative explanation as to why he is not asked.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;427497][QUOTE=Pierre;427493]

We have an encounter between 3 men, confirmed by seperate sources, that is 3 inquest testimonies and one admittedly less reliable press interview. However that reliability does not I feel extend to if he was actually there or not.

Just because Mizen only mentions Paul in passing that does not make Paul's presence at the encounter invalid, indeed it confirms it, nor does it challenge Paul's recollection.

Dear Steve.

The question is not "the encounter". That concept is now used by you and put forth instead of the concept we are discussing, Steve. The concept here discussed, and problematized, is "information".

According to the sources Mizen stated that Cross informed him. Not Paul. Do you see the difference now between the concept of information and the concept of "the encounter"?

And do you also see the methodological implications of this difference? I see many.

And also you use the concept of "presence at the encounter". This is a wider concept which is even more difficult to interpret, donīt you think?

It is very similar to the use of the concept of "found with the body" and "found with a freshly slain victim". You recognize these.

Such concepts imply that there is a realistic and substantial, factual situation which is well defined.

Such concepts are used for placing people in the past in specific places.

These concepts hide the past by attributing to it certain characteristics used for backing views.

So, telling us that "Paul was present at the encounter" means telling us that he was present - where? Face to face with Mizen? On a small / medium / long distance? On the same side of the street? On the other side of the street?

(Did Paul like the police?

Did Paul WANT TO talk to the police?)

Steve: Where exactly is AT the encounter?

Your answer will be things like:

would have...should have...could have...

and of course we know the power of those arguments, dear Steve.

There is no reason to suggest that Paul was not capable of supplying information on an encounter of which he was a part.

Of course there is such a reason. Have you not read the interview?

Surely you do not pretend that you have not read it?

And do you not remember your own source ciriticism on the tendencies in it?

There is the reason, a say a very strong reason, to suggest that Paul was not capable of suppplying information, i.e. correct information.

Donīt you think the police understood that?

We cannot know what Paul would have said, however the Lloyds article suggests he may not have agreed with Mizen's version.

You can safely say that Paul had a motive for his tendency.

And the hypotheticel motive was not that he had informed Mizen. Since there is no source for it.

And since when do you base your assumptions on non existing sources, Steve? You donīt - do you?

Sorry for this, Steve. But you are too smart to get inte the traps of some ripperologists.

So in reply to your question did the Police have the possability to ask Paul to get clarification the answer is that as part of the encounter according to the sources, yes they could have.

And there is no source for the police having done that.

If he was believed is a different matter, The issue is he was not asked at all.

No, Steve. The issue is THERE ARE NO SOURCES for the police having done that.

It's not about Paul telling the Police anything, he is giving inquest testimony.

Good. And what did he say. Letīs take one source and see:

"Robert Baul [Paul], 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway. He felt her hands and face, and they were cold. The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint. The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman. Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman. Before he reached Buck's-row he had seen no one running away."

(http://casebook.org/official_documen...t_nichols.html)

The whole testimony is about Paul being in Buckīs Row. One sentence is about Paul and the "presence" "at the encounter". And what did he say?

"The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman."

And I note you do not provide any alternative explanation as to why he is not asked.

He was (!) not asked "Did Cross tell Mizen that there was a policeman in Buckīs Row", this is what you mean.

So - Why was Paul not asked "Did Cross tell Mizen that there was a policeman in Buckīs Row"?

Hypotheses:

1. Because he was not treated as a realiable witness, since there were contrary statements in the interview.

2. Because he was treated as a person who lied / misremembered / could not apply the best evidence.

3. Because PC Mizen and Cross had given their evidence and that was sufficient for the inquest.

4. Because Cross contradicted Mizen and having another carman doing the same was not a good option for the police.

5. Because having another carman who had already criticized the police in the press doing the same in court was not a good option for the police.

Five easy ones. For which there is data.

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[




"Robert Baul [Paul], 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway. He felt her hands and face, and they were cold. The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint. The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman. Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman. Before he reached Buck's-row he had seen no one running away."

(http://casebook.org/official_documen...t_nichols.html)

The whole testimony is about Paul being in Buckīs Row. One sentence is about Paul and the "presence" "at the encounter". And what did he say?

"The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman."



He was (!) not asked "Did Cross tell Mizen that there was a policeman in Buckīs Row", this is what you mean.

So - Why was Paul not asked "Did Cross tell Mizen that there was a policeman in Buckīs Row"?

Hypotheses:

1. Because he was not treated as a realiable witness, since there were contrary statements in the interview.

2. Because he was treated as a person who lied / misremembered / could not apply the best evidence.

3. Because PC Mizen and Cross had given their evidence and that was sufficient for the inquest.

4. Because Cross contradicted Mizen and having another carman doing the same was not a good option for the police.

5. Because having another carman who had already criticized the police in the press doing the same in court was not a good option for the police.

Five easy ones. For which there is data.

Cheers, Pierre

My dear Pierre I have spent sometime considering how to reply to this.

Firstly let's be clear in the Police report of the 19th September there is a description of the meeting between Mizen and the Carmen. There is no mention of Mizen's account at all. It is not even dismissed it is just airbrushed out.

Second Paul is not answering the Police on 17th he is giving evidence at the inquest, why you keep introducing them I fail to see. If the Police wished to speak to him they probably already had. They would not be relying on the inquest to finalise their reports.


In fact 3 of those 5 points you list are inline with my initial comment, so I fail to see the problem you have. Perhaps you are misinterpreting what I said.


I agree his actual testimony is very sparse, and a very different tone to the press article.
And yes that is the whole point, why is he not asked if he heard what was said?

My view as originally posted was that he was not asked as a conclusion had already been made on the exchange, as suggested by the POLICE report, No additional information was needed. Which is a variation on your point 3.


Your points four and five are equally valid and are useful as I write up.
I believe the Police wanted the story to go away, as do you I think, just for different reasons to those I happen to think apply


Cheers

Steve