The Bucks Row Project part 2

[drstrange169]

>Still it seems clear that Neil was not aware on Saturday or probably on Sunday of what Mizen would say.<<

Absolutely!

[Pierre]

Pierre the view I am looking at is that he stayed mainly out of the conversation as such letting Lechmere do most of the talking but may have chipped in with comments as Lechmere describes. Let's call him a passive part of the meeting, there, listening and making comments but not taking a full part. Possibly becausebof a dislike of the police.

Steve

Hi Steve,

that´s not a view, that´s an hypothesis.

So, how does that hypothesis of yours explain the early source where Paul is described as having talked to the police by himself while Cross waited in Buck´s Row and how does that hypothesis explain the active role of Paul, as opposed to the passive role in your hypothesis?

Cheers, Pierre

[Pierre]

QUOTE=drstrange169;424996

The problem for us, is that they may have been asked and simply not reported.

I've been comparing newspaper reports with Old Bailey transcripts recently and the newspapers leave a lot to be desired when it comes to coverage.

Very, very important point!

Pierre

[Elamarna]

QUOTE=drstrange169;424996





Very, very important point!

Pierre

Agreed. However we can only use what we have.

When I go onto Mitre square, part of the work will involved comparing the original to the paper reports.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

that´s not a view, that´s an hypothesis.

So, how does that hypothesis of yours explain the early source where Paul is described as having talked to the police by himself while Cross waited in Buck´s Row and how does that hypothesis explain the active role of Paul, as opposed to the passive role in your hypothesis?

Cheers, Pierre

Pierre

It's only an hypothesis when I present it as such in part 3.

But seriously it based on my assements of the various sources, looking at all 3 of the participants in the event. It appears that Paul in the early account in Lloyds wishes to be the centre of attention, this changes after the Lloyds article, which must be viewed with great caution in itself.
Has I have said before, I feel that we can only accept it when corroborated by either Lechmere or Mizen.

Hope that supplies an answer..


Steve

[Pierre]

Pierre

It's only an hypothesis when I present it as such in part 3.

But seriously it based on my assements of the various sources, looking at all 3 of the participants in the event. It appears that Paul in the early account in Lloyds wishes to be the centre of attention, this changes after the Lloyds article, which must be viewed with great caution in itself.
Has I have said before, I feel that we can only accept it when corroborated by either Lechmere or Mizen.

Hope that supplies an answer..

Steve

Thanks Steve,

I really admire you patience with these terrible sources.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

Thanks Steve,

I really admire you patience with these terrible sources.

Pierre

Well if we want to research the issues Pierre we have little option do we but to use what we have?
However it does mean that we must weight a degree of uncertainty into how we read, and accept that we will never have a cast iron case if using only such sources.
We do have a few more reliable sources in Bucks Row. There are several official police reports which are better to work with. They will appear sometime next week.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Bucks Row Project part 2 post 7 -Llewellyn

[ATTACH]18199[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]18200[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]18201[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]18202[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]18203[/ATTACH]

[Elamarna]

Bucks Row Project part 2 post 7a -Llewellyn





Time to look at Dr Llewellyn.

The first point of some contention, for several reasons is when did Thain call on him and when did he reach Bucks Row?

The reply is not as easy as one hopes for of course:

In his early press statement (Reports: 1-4) he says he was called to Bucks Row at about 3.55 by PC Thain.
The first question this raises is was that the time Thain knocked, or the time Llewellyn arrive? It can be read either way, fortunately in all 4 reports he goes on to say:

“I went to the place at once”

This clearly suggests this was after he was awakened and so the about 3.55 is the time of Thain arriving.

However Reports 6-12 which are reports of the inquest change the time to about 4am, they reinforce the idea tht this was the time he was awoken, rather than the time he arrived in Bucks Row.

This at least clears up that particular issue, we are still left with a question about the time that Thain arrived.

I have already look at this in part 1 and will again in part 3, all we can say is that Thain arrived between approx 3.53 (any sooner and surely the statement would say about 3.50) and 4.02 (any later and it would be 4.05) so we may have a range of up to 10 minutes or so.

This of course does not tell us what time the doctor may have arrived in Bucks row, again I have covered this in part 1 and shall return again in part 3.

The next point is his initial reports of the wounds:


“The throat was cut from ear to ear, and the woman was quite dead. On feeling the extremities of the body, I found that they were still warm, showing that death had not long ensued.

There was a very small pool of blood in the pathway, which had trickled from the wound in the throat, not more than would fill two wine glasses, or half a pint at the outside. This fact and the way which the deceased was lying made me think at the time that it was probable that the murder was committed elsewhere, and the body conveyed to Buck's-row. At the time I had no idea of the fearful abdominal wounds which had been inflicted upon the body”


The above is from Report 1 however much the same is reported in Reports1-4 with minor changes of wording. It should be noted that Reports 2 & 4 do not included the comment about not noticing the abdominal wounds,

Report 5, while based on the same statement is much shorter and obviously heavily edited and gives few details other than:

“He said that the woman was killed by the cuts on the throat - there are two, and the throat is divided back to the vertebrae.”


What is interesting is what is not said, there is no real description of the pool of blood, certainly not the same detail as provided by the police witnesses, and no mention of any search of the area to see if there was any more blood, indeed Llewellyn says:

“A crowd was now gathering, and as it was undesirable to make a further examination in the street, I ordered the removal of the body to the mortuary,”


Lets us now look at how this compare to the later information from the inquest

From Report 6

“I found the deceased woman lying flat on her back in the pathway, her legs extended. I found she was quite dead, and that she had severe injuries to her throat. Her hands and wrists were cold, but the body and lower extremities were quite warm. I examined her chest and felt her heart. It was dark at the time. I believe that she had not been dead more than half an hour. I am quite certain that the injuries to her neck were not self-inflicted. There was very little blood round the neck.
There were no marks of any struggle or of blood, as if the body had been dragged. I told the police to take her to the mortuary, and I would make another examination. About an hour”


Reports 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 are almost word perfect, 11 is shorter but says very much the same..

This is very close to his initial statement, the only real addition being little blood by the neck and now no mention of the pool of blood.

Back to the earlier Reports 1-5:

Report 1 describes the abdomen wounds although not in detail, which is provided in 2, 3 and 4
Reports 1, 2, 3 & 5 mention the marks on the jaw and face and the cuts to the neck
Report 4 does not mention marks on face or jaw
Report 5 gives details of the possible weapon and a suggestion for the facial marks, which is not not strangulation.!

Lets again compare to later reports
Reports 6-12.

These note the damage to abdomen, then go onto the face and jaw, giving details which are slightly different from his earlier statement, however his view for the cause of these marks now seems to have changed, nothing is stated outright but hints of strangulation are there.

The neck wounds are given next, the wording is very similar, and suggests great force was used, and that a long bladed knife-8 inches long and moderately sharp was used.

This seems very much in keeping with the earlier reports, obviously more detail is now given

He also notes no blood on the front of clothing.

On to abdomen wounds the following is gleaned:

Reports 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12,

Give a rough description, stressing severity of wounds but no actual anatomic details other than the tissues cut were through, but not which tissues? or how deep ?
We have information that the wounds are left to right, by the same weapon and possibly by a left handed person.

Report 11 say the same but also adds:

“Nearly all the blood had been drained out of the arteries and veins, and collected to a large extent in the loose tissues.”

And

“The deceased's wound were sufficient to cause instantaneous death.”


There is an obvious grammatical error here, and should it read:

“wounds were or “wound was” or “would” rather than “were”, as it stands it is ambiguous if we are talking of one of more wounds.

And of course an issue here is where did that comment come in the proceedings, with out the original transcript we have no idea if it is part of the preceding line or spaced from it? was something said which is not included? Looking at report 6 it seems there might be:

“Coroner: Must she of necessity have screamed? - No; I think the wound would have caused instantaneous death.”


He is clearly talking of a single cut, which?

This comes after the comments about the knife in Report 6, not before as in Report 11; therefore the context is not at all clear. We do not know what else is missing or not included.

The same applies to an extent to the next quote, the two reports have it in different places in the proceedings, the context is not clear.

Report 6 and (11)

“for whoever did it has attacked all the vital parts. “

It’s very clear that parts were attacked, if total unrevealing which those are. And it comes before the comment about instantaneous death.

Compare it to report 11

“for he seemed to have attacked all the vital parts. “
(my underlining).
MNot as sure here, and it happen after the comments about instantaneous death in this report.


On his recall on 17th September which one assumes was to check if any organ were missing, after the Chapman death,. He says he has since his last appearance carried out another examination of the body ( Reports: 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 & 21.).

This suggests the original Post mortem was not complete, or he would be no need to look a second time.
On the issue of missing organs Reports: 14, 15, 16, 17 & 20 appear to be somewhat guarded in that he said he “did not believe”, however one must accept that may just be phrase he used, reports 19 and 22 are far more positive in saying nothing was missing.

In part 3 we will attempt delve deeper into the issue of the abdominal wounds.

[Elamarna]

Bucks Row Project part 2 post 8 -Green










Here we have the reports of Mrs Green.

Reports one and two are early reports by Jornalists and give little information other than name and location and That they heard no sounds of a struggle.

We do have the reports of the time she was knocked up by the police: Report 3 says at 4, Reports 4, 7, 8, 9,11 & 12 say “about 4” which fits roughly with the testimony of the police.

We have a series of Reports 3, 7, 8, 9 & 11 which report her claim she was a “light sleeper” such a report is completely subjective and is of little real value.

However reports 3, 5, 9, 10 and 11 all say she would have heard a scream, again this highly subject, as it depends on the intensity and duration of any scream.

Reports 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 & 11 say she and her family heard nothing which woke them during the night, what is very important is that reports 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12 say she only woke up when knocked up by the police at about 4am.

Report 11 just says she heard the knock, not that it woke her up.

From the above it appears the family were asleep during the attack.

We have a series of comments that the street was often busy Reports 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 12, report 3 is the only report to say it was unusually quiet.

One very interesting point in report 4:

“ There was often great noise in the street, as people passed through it. They did not, however, take any notice of it.”


This suggests that they blocked out much ordinary background noise, which may account for them not hearing Nichols and killer or Lechmere and Paul. In such circumstances it may well be if killer was quiet they may not hear such even if awake, which seems unlikely..


We now see Green, attempt to distance herself and her street from working women, she says she is not aware of any disorderly houses in the street Reports: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12.
When asked if there were some in Thomas street she said she did not know (one assumes there may well have been hence the question) Reports 7 & 8 that she would not know seems highly unlikely.

She attempts to portray Bucks Row as a respectable street, that is her tendency. She wants to say that prostitutes do not work the street.

There is little on the victim or the blood, Report 3 says blood on pavement and much had soaked into her clothing.

Reports :7, 8 & 9 say her son washed away the blood under the supervision of PC Thain.

[Elamarna]

Bucks Row Project part 2 post 9 -Purkiss





Purkiss lived directly opposite the murder site and his evidence could be interesting, however for the most part it appears not to be

Reports 1-3 are apparently based on quotes and interviews conducted by the press

They say that the family heard nothing, report 3 gives more details, the wife was unwell, they both woke often during the night, considered it to be very quiet and the qwatchman above them also heard nothing.

The inquest reports give a little more information

Reports 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 say he was woken by the police, reports 5, 7, 8, 9 & 10 say he was probably asleep before this for some time.

Reports 5 & 10 say the wife awake for an hour before this, Report 11 says most of night, yet she heard nothing, not even Paul and Lehmere talking outside.

This really does call the reliability of this into question, the same applies with comments about unusually quiet, if they are asleep for much of the night as Purkiss claims he was, how can he say how quiet the night was.

Reports 7, 8, 9 & 11 say when he was called there were people there, Report 9 says 3-4 constables, this would mean he is knock up much later than some assume for the numbers to be correct.
We can assume Kirby is one, Thain another, however he also says 2 men are already there.
Who were they?
It is suggested in part 2 post 4 they could be from knocking up, and include Purkiss; but this seems to be refuted here by Purkiss which takes us back to the slaughter men and Thain.

[Elamarna]

More tomorrow


Steve

[Pierre]

More tomorrow

Steve

Great work, Steve!

[Pierre]

[ATTACH]18209[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]18210[/ATTACH]

Purkiss lived directly opposite the murder site and his evidence could be interesting, however for the most part it appears not to be

Reports 1-3 are apparently based on quotes and interviews conducted by the press

They say that the family heard nothing, report 3 gives more details, the wife was unwell, they both woke often during the night, considered it to be very quiet and the qwatchman above them also heard nothing.

The inquest reports give a little more information

Reports 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 say he was woken by the police, reports 5, 7, 8, 9 & 10 say he was probably asleep before this for some time.

Reports 5 & 10 say the wife awake for an hour before this, Report 11 says most of night, yet she heard nothing, not even Paul and Lehmere talking outside.

This really does call the reliability of this into question, the same applies with comments about unusually quiet, if they are asleep for much of the night as Purkiss claims he was, how can he say how quiet the night was.

Reports 7, 8, 9 & 11 say when he was called there were people there, Report 9 says 3-4 constables, this would mean he is knock up much later than some assume for the numbers to be correct.
We can assume Kirby is one, Thain another, however he also says 2 men are already there.
Who were they?
It is suggested in part 2 post 4 they could be from knocking up, and include Purkiss; but this seems to be refuted here by Purkiss which takes us back to the slaughter men and Thain.

And the press writing people did not hear any sounds and they did not hear any disturbances can mean they heard other things, but not any sounds interpreted as sounds from the murder or the discovery of it.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

Bucks Row Project part 2 post 10 - Mulshaw





Lets look at Mulshaw, firstly he did a 13 hour shrift, that is very long, starting at 5pm and finishing at 6am, it would therefore not be surprising if he did fall asleep at some stage which he freely admits.

His positioning is interesting he say he is about 50 yards from the slaughter house in reports 3 & 4, yet in report 5 says 70 yards

He also gives a straight line distance from the murder site to his location

In report 1 this is given as 70 yards, yet in report 2 as 30 yards.
It is interesting that 70 appears more than once and maybe there was some confusing and misreporting. 30 yards seems to fit and we can see this in figure (1) below.

'Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland'



A = 30 yards distance to possible site of Mulshaw. B= 50 yards from Slaughter house to possible site of Mulshaw.

It is obvious from his replies that he slept at times Reports : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 7

Reports 3 & 4 say that when directly asked if he was asleep between 3-4, he replied “I don t think so”, while report 7 says “he did not think he slept between 3-4”

Reports 5 and 6 say he was not asleep during 3-4, however no direct quote is given and this could be taken from his “i don’t think so” comment.

Of more interest is his response to the following question :
“The Coroner. -- Would you have heard any cry from where the woman lay?
Witness: I can't say that I should”. Carried in reports 3 & 4.

Report 5 gives a slightly different account, and appears to be at odds with the above 2, however “might” could be seen as similar to “I cant say that I should”.

“By the CORONER. - If any one had called out for assistance from the spot where the body was he might have heard it. Nothing suspicious occurred during the time he was watching, and he saw no person running away. “


Report 6 says but did not see anyone about at that time, nor did he hear any cries for assistance, or any other noise, while report 7 merely says he saw nobody about and heard no noise.

In all it seems he was not sure he would have heard anything, and that he may have been dozing for much of the night.

His comments on the police are interesting, he should over a 13 hour period have seen a policeman 26 times, however he claims he only saw an officer every two hours reports 3 & 4.

Reports 3, 4 and 5 all say police were not around often and that he only saw two that night, one being identified at Neil, but Mulshaw had no idea when he had seen him.

This raises several questions

1. Was Mulshaw asleep and so missed the police patrols?

2. Alternatively knowing there was a watchman at the western end of Winthrop street did police cut that part of the beat on a regular basis, it is certainly possible

3. Who was the other police officer?

It could be the PC on duty before Neil, which seems most likely, or it could be Thain, less likely but by no means impossible, given that at some stage it seems Thain did go to the slaughter house to collect his cape, or some other unknown policeman. I will discuss this issue in part3 in more depth. Or some one else.

He also claims he was approached by a stranger who tells him there has been a murder in Bucks row. Reports 3 & 4 suggest this occurred at 4.40 and that Mulshaw saw Dr Llewellyn,, this seems too late given the doctors testimony.

Report 6 again say 4.40, for the time the man speaks to Mulshaw but gives no other details
In report 5 no time is given, and 3 or 4 policeman are reported present at the site along with 5 or 6 working men.

This incident may well relate to the man seen passing down Bucks Row who was neither stopped or identified. However some claim it was one of the slaughter men.

Over all the reports suggest a man who did not pay too much attention to what was going on around him, and more to his long hours, poor pay and heating report 1 & 2.

There is a feeling in the reports that he is unsure about much, and there must be considerable issues with the reliability of his testimony.