The Bucks Row Project part 2

[Elamarna]

Bucks Row Project part 2 post 11 - Lilley



The reports on the statement of Harriet lilley are intriguing, but ultimately unrewarding.

She claims she was awake and heard a series of noises, a painful moan and several faint gasps (the attack?). she also say she heard whispers and distinct voices (Paul and Lechmere?).

The interesting point is she claimed to hear a train passing at the same time, however it is not clear if the whispers are after or before the train.

The only train it could reasonably be is the 3.07 from New Cross.
The time of 3.07 from New Cross allows us to check, but poster drstrange169 (dusty miller) has pointed out the company, Eastern Railway were notoriously bad for sticking to time tables.
However by checking the 1906 Bradshaws, (only copy I could find for the period), it was possible to estimate that the train should have arrived 14-16 minutes after departure, that is 3.21-3.22, however being a goods train it may have moved slower and so 3.25-3.30 seems most likely, but given Dusty’s comments it does not really help.

It has also been suggested that her report is so far after the the event it my not be reliable, and while this may indeed be true to an extent, Mrs Green and others did not give evidence until 17th so such an argument is not 100% convincing.

IF and it is a big IF Lilley is correct, then the timing of the attack may be closer to 3.30 than 3.45

However it must also be admitted Lilley was not called to give evidence at the inquest.

The reliability of the reports is open to some question at present and more research is need on lilley before her statements can be useful.

[Elamarna]

Bucks Row Project part 2 post 12 - Walker, Nichols, Monk, Eade & Holland

[ATTACH]18217[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]18218[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]18219[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]18220[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]18221[/ATTACH]

[Elamarna]

Bucks Row Project part 2 post 12a - Walker, Nichols, Monk, Eade & Holland








I have combined a group of witnesses here, while their testimony gives background on the events in Bucks Row that night, it gives little in the way of evidence to what occurred,

Walker, Nichols and Monk therefore are included but no assessment is made of their testimony given that such does not directly relate to Bucks Row on the 31st. They are included for completeness of the records

Eade’s account while initially of some interest, appears to be explained away by the Police, at least to the satisfaction of Mr Baxter,

This leaves us with Holland or as some report Oram.

Her testimony allows us to at least draw a possible view of Nichols some 60-105 minutes before she is found dead. (most reports say 2.30, but report 8 says 2am )

Reports 6-10 state she was drunk and alone, she had spent her doss money several times over, would not go with Holland and would continue to search for money to pay for her bed.
Holland of course says she has no idea how Nichols gets money.

The meeting occurred at corner of Osborne Street and Whitechapel Road, according to report 8 the exchange took some 7-8 minutes, this may not be reliable given the report is the only one to give the time of the meeting as 2 rather than 2.30. at best I suggest it points to the meeting being more than just a brief exchange.
After which Nichols continued on along Whitechapel Road, and that is all.

[Elamarna]

There will be a break of a few days, before the next section which looks at the goings on at the mortuary and the slaughter house. Wednesday posting probably.


Steve

[MrBarnett]

Excellent work, Steve.

I'm particularly looking forward to your take on the doings of the knackers.

[Elamarna]

Excellent work, Steve.

I'm particularly looking forward to your take on the doings of the knackers.

Thank You
It one of the most interesting parts I think, while I do not for one moment think any are involved in the Murder, there is a lot of evasion and misinformation supplied to the inquest, and a degree of loyalty not returned, if you get my drift.


Steve

[MrBarnett]

Thank You
It one of the most interesting parts I think, while I do not for one moment think any are involved in the Murder, there is a lot of evasion and misinformation supplied to the inquest, and a degree of loyalty not returned, if you get my drift.


Steve

Yes, I believe Tomkins was being somewhat economical with the truth. He was the odd one out of the three, having only recently arrived in London from Manchester, and yet he was chosen (by whom?) to act as spokesman.

It will be interesting to see all the sources side by side.

[Sam Flynn]

The reports on the statement of Harriet lilley are intriguing, but ultimately unrewarding.

Strictly-speaking, there seems to be just the one report of Harriet Lilley's account, published, with identical wording, in the Echo, the People and Lloyd's Weekly.

[Elamarna]

Strictly-speaking, there seems to be just the one report of Harriet Lilley's account, published, with identical wording, in the Echo, the People and Lloyd's Weekly.

Yes Gareth, i left "The People" out for that reason, and because I am aware of the amount of space am using too.
However i wished to show there was more than a single report in just one publication.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Yes, I believe Tomkins was being somewhat economical with the truth. He was the odd one out of the three, having only recently arrived in London from Manchester, and yet he was chosen (by whom?) to act as spokesman.

It will be interesting to see all the sources side by side.

Hi,

not sure about ALL the Sources, use 16 in dealing with them

Steve

[MrBarnett]

Hi Steve,

There was considerable variation in the reporting of Tomkins's inquest testimony. It'll be interesting to see how they compare.

Regards,

Gary

[Sam Flynn]

I am aware of the amount of space am using too.

Don't worry, Steve. It's useful to have the related accounts pulled together in one place.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

There was considerable variation in the reporting of Tomkins's inquest testimony. It'll be interesting to see how they compare.

Regards,

Gary

Hi Gary,

there certainly are some variations

I also use Mumfords interview from the echo 4th, which gives a different slant as Tom pointed out in his recent publication.

There certainly appears to be something not 100%, intend to tie it all together as best i can in part 3, at present am still undecided on the view tol take. (it will i think include testimony from, Neil, Thain, Mulshaw and Purkiss).


Steve

[Elamarna]

Don't worry, Steve. It's useful to have the related accounts pulled together in one place.

Thinking of putting it all together as either a optical disk or download for others as a fully searchable research tool. (part 2).


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;425170]

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.

OK, Steve. So this is your method of interpretation when you try to to answer the question of "when?":

You are quoting different statements about minutes from newspaper articles, adding two minutes here and there by yourself and drawing the conclusion that there was some sort of possible time period of 10 minutes in the past, using the expressions "approximately", "should say" and "may have".

Can you please tell me how this differs from the method of Fisherman when he tries to answer the question "when"?

I am so happy I do not try to research minutiae in Buck´s Row. It is impossible to get any reliable results from it.

Cheers, Pierre