The Bucks Row Project part 2

[Elamarna]

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

well I do not use timings to attempt to prove an issue, only to see if it is possible to exclude certain options.
Using it here, not because it is important to the murder, but it may have implications for Thain and the issue of the cape, the slaughter men and the "other two men" in Bucks Row. such I find very interesting issues in themselves..

The sources do not give clear answers has they stand, too many contradictory statements.
The timings may be able to exclude some options, or maybe not.


Surely it is correct to attempt to establish some sort of timeline for events?



Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;425410]

well I do not use timings to attempt to prove an issue, only to see if it is possible to exclude certain options.

Dear Steve,

and is not Fisherman using timings to "see if it is possible to exclude certain options", i.e. the option that Lechmere could not be Jack the Ripper?

Using it here, not because it is important to the murder, but it may have implications for Thain and the issue of the cape, the slaughter men and the "other two men" in Bucks Row. such I find very interesting issues in themselves..

So not drawing conclusions, for example about the so called blood evidence from these data later on then...

The sources do not give clear answers has they stand, too many contradictory statements.
The timings may be able to exclude some options, or maybe not.

The timings may be able to be used for that, yes.

But the methodological problems are many:

1. Not knowing the quality of the sources.
2. Witnesses stating things they had to draw from memory.
3. Witnesses not knowing the exact time when they made their statements.
4. Witnesses not being exact.
5. Witnesses guessing.
6. Witnesses not remembering.
7. Witnesses giving statements for their percieved usual practice instead of the particular timings in question.
8. The researcher - you, in this case - not knowing which ones of all these problems are the worst in each case of analyzing timings.

Given all these problems we can still postulate an hypothesis about a timeline. But that hypothesis will never be testable. And therefore it must be rejected.

And it must be testable, since you may think that you have this:

timeline

when in fact you have this:

timeliiine

Surely it is correct to attempt to establish some sort of timeline for events?

The establishing of a timeline, i.e. an hypothesis about the chronological events over time for the murder of Polly Nichols, is getting more difficult as the time units are getting smaller. One day or night is no problem, one hour is no problem, a quarter is beginning to be a problem, minutes are very problematic and seconds impossible.

And minutes are counted in seconds. This means that the substantial significance of every historical minute depends on knowledge about seconds.

Where does one minute in the actual sources begin and where does it end? At second no 44? 19? 32?

How do we establish the minutes in Buck´s Row (given 1-8)?

The substancial significance when based on normative sources, beat regulations for example, is a purely theoretical construction, a construction on paper, since the beat regulations were not a motor built into the body of Neil (for example). It was on paper but not in the essence of Neil.

How do we connect this paper to the feet at the beat one night in 1888 - given all the problems at hand?

How do we establish a "time period" based on seconds?

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

and is not Fisherman using timings to "see if it is possible to exclude certain options", i.e. the option that Lechmere could not be Jack the Ripper?

You may have point. However it depends on how one applies such timings.

For instance in the above example you use the argument is that the blood evidence for instance cannot exclude Lechmere, it is an approach from the negative, that is to say what cannot be excluded.
However the example I shall use is that of Neil, who based on the sources of both Carmen and himself and the known regulation beat walking pace, cannot have arrived at the murder scene less than almost 3 minutes, maybe longer after the Carmen left. It is a different approach to my way of thinking, I see you question the use of the beat pace later on. And I will address it then, and in more depth in part 3

So not drawing conclusions, for example about the so called blood evidence from these data later on then...

Not really other than Mizen cannot see flowing blood based on the data used for the hypothesis, he arrives far after the time suggested by Payne-James according to the sources and thus invalidates the hypothesis. (Based on his report appears to be from when he returns with the Ambulance.)

The main problem with said hypothesis is that it is not valid. It fails as an hypothesis.

The timings may be able to be used for that, yes.

But the methodological problems are many:

1. Not knowing the quality of the sources.
2. Witnesses stating things they had to draw from memory.
3. Witnesses not knowing the exact time when they made their statements.
4. Witnesses not being exact.
5. Witnesses guessing.
6. Witnesses not remembering.
7. Witnesses giving statements for their percieved usual practice instead of the particular timings in question.
8. The researcher - you, in this case - not knowing which ones of all these problems are the worst in each case of analyzing timings.

Given all these problems we can still postulate an hypothesis about a timeline. But that hypothesis will never be testable. And therefore it must be rejected.

And it must be testable, since you may think that you have this:

timeline

when in fact you have this:

timeliiine


The establishing of a timeline, i.e. an hypothesis about the chronological events over time for the murder of Polly Nichols, is getting more difficult as the time units are getting smaller. One day or night is no problem, one hour is no problem, a quarter is beginning to be a problem, minutes are very problematic and seconds impossible.

I do not think one needs to total discared such timings, but they should not be used on their own to attempt to prove anything.
If something is down to seconds you cannot in all justification use it, such would not be scientific.

And minutes are counted in seconds. This means that the substantial significance of every historical minute depends on knowledge about seconds.

Where does one minute in the actual sources begin and where does it end? At second no 44? 19? 32?

How do we establish the minutes in Buck´s Row (given 1-8)?

We cannot be pricise, the figures are a guide only, no more, no less.

In Part two I have only used timings in the way you suggest when looking at beats of Police and we have regulation walking paces so we can see if a suggested repeated time again say Neil at around 30 minutes is possible. I have done the same with Thain. Again I note your later comments on police beats.

And also with Llewellyn, mainly to lay a possible frame work to look later at the sources on the slaughter men, which are difficult as they stand, and I wondered if such times could help.
However the range appears to be too small to be of any assisrance; however it was worth checking I believe.
The slaughter men/cape/men in street sources are most complex, and it has been a real struggle compared to other areas.
So to repeat such are in general a guide only, no more.

The substancial significance when based on normative sources, beat regulations for example, is a purely theoretical construction, a construction on paper, since the beat regulations were not a motor built into the body of Neil (for example). It was on paper but not in the essence of Neil.

How do we connect this paper to the feet at the beat one night in 1888 - given all the problems at hand?

Good points.

However the beats were checked by sergeants and one assumes who be reasonably accurate over the course of a whole duty.
There would of course be incidents which would slow the overall beat up, so a thirty minute beat could easily stretch by a third. And in emergency by far more. Mizen being a good example that night with a considerable delay in his beat. The same applies to Neil and Thain of course.

However over a short distance with no indication of other distractions it is fair to estimate a rough timing between two points. Of course it will not be exact, but a guide none the less. It may of course take much longer if there are other incidents.

How do we establish a "time period" based on seconds?

Cheers, Pierre

We cannot and I do not try to.

I am aware of all the issues you point out, and I do not ignore them.

Cheers



Steve

[MrBarnett]

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

IMHO, Mumford's Echo interview can be construed as a Rosetta Stone in interpreting the knackers' evidence, if you are minded to see it as such.

[Elamarna]

IMHO, Mumford's Echo interview can be construed as a Rosetta Stone in interpreting the knackers' evidence, if you are minded to see it as such.

You may well be correct in that Gary. I can see several possible sceneries, their is little solid evidence for any. I may well end up in part 3 giving 2 or 3 and picking one as a best guess. Not very scientific I must admit.

Steve

[Patrick S]

Hey, Steve. Just catching up. Excellent work. Very interesting. Excellent summations provided. Good work highlighting that the descriptions of blood as "running" were relative to the direction of blood flow and were not intended as the "blood evidence" were asked to believe they've become. Looking forward to the rest!

[Elamarna]

A warning on next few posts

Hi,
The next group of reports are some of the most contentious in many ways, involving the Mortuary attendants and the workers from the slaughter house.
While I may hint at things in the summaries I will make no definite statements. All being left until part 3. However the clues has to where I may be heading are there so feel free to comment.

I am also going to try hosting some of the reports on a 3rd party (imgur) as I am very conscious of the server space I may be using.
If there are any issues with this please let me know ASAP.

Hope to post on Wednesday.

Cheers

Steve

[Elamarna]

Bucks Row Protect part2 post 13- Mortuary








Mann says he arrived at the Mortuary at about 5am. (Report: 1 & 3.), he also says that after body was taken inside he locked mortuary and went for breakfast (Reports: 3,1.) this obviously cannot have happened until sometime after 5.30 as both Llewellyn and spratling say an examination was carried out soon after 5.30 am, after Spratling found and notified Notified the Doctor of the abdominal wounds. Mann therefore must have locked up around 6am.
Hatfield arrived later, at about 6.30, did he go and have breakfast with Mann or was the mortuary open again by this time, there is unfortunatly no data to help with this question. (Reports: 1 & 3.).

Mann then says the body was not undressed until after breakfast ( Reports: 1, 2, 3 & 6).

We know that Helson did not arrive until sometime after 8, but before 9am, that leaves a long gap, and it seems possible that the two attendants at least started to undress without authority.

Mann says Helson was not present when the body of Nichols was undressed (Reports: 1, 2 & 6).
In Report 3 he initially said Helson was not present, but under further questioning from Baxter, Mann finally he replies he could not say if present or not.

Hatfield also says that no one was present when they undressed the body. (Reports: 1 & 3). While in Reports 2 & 6 he says they “were quite alone”

Further to this point Mann says they received no instructions in Report 7, while Hatfield says the same in Reports 1 & 3.
.
There is also confusing over whether a doctor was arriving: Hatfield saying he had been told so in Reports 1 & 3, whilst Mann says he was not aware of it in Report 7.

One point Mann seems clear on is that the clothing was not torn or cut before they began the removal process ( Reports: 1 & 3).

However there is considerable confusion over the removal of the clothing:

In report 1 we are told the clothing is cut, and later that it is torn to remove it,
Reports 2 & 6 say it was cut and torn to remove.
Report 3 says just cut in the part by Mann, yet the part by Hatfield says cut and torn.
Report 7 just says cut.
And Reports 4 & 5 say just the dress was cut.

Overall not terribly informative or reliable.

One really to ask if the police were indeed present would such have been allowed and would they not have recorded details of the removal?

There are then conflicts over if the victim was wearing stays or not, inexplicably Reports 1, 2 & 6 say Not! Reports 4 and 5 say not sure.

However has a juror points out, somewhat unhappily, Hatfield joked about with said stays when the juror visited the mortuary. Hatfield obviously embarrassed said he did not recall this.

It seems clear that Hatfield took part in what we would consider inappropriate behaviour. ( Reports : 1, 2, 3 & 6)
This really says much about the attitude of the mortuary staff, far more than the claim of fits does by Baxter.

Mann could not remember where blood was on the clothing, (Reports 1 & 3), And it seems upon removal, the clothing was just dumped on the floor, allowing possible cross contamination of items with blood. ( Reports: 1 & 3).

We then reach one of the few firm pieces of information, the Lambeth Workhouse label was removed from the clothing by Hatfield on the direct instruction of Helson; but this was after the clothing had been removed, and we do not know how long after.

The testimony is very patchy and shows two old poorly educated men, performing menial duties.
One has to say that there is much unreliability in the testimonies, However to blame that on fits has Baxter did was wrong.

Even although it appears very unreliable it gives us some valuable data:

The cloths were just dumped on floor, allowing for possible cross contamination.

Helson was present to give instruction to remove the Lambeth Workhouse label, so it seems odd that they would acknowledge this, yet deny he was present when they began to undress Nichols.

That Mann did not recall the blood on the clothing is a shame, as there is some question over what Spratling saw: He may not have looked at the back of the clothing (Spratling Table, report 3) he says he did not notice any on back, which can have several interpretations yet in report 6 of the same table the report is different, which may be due to those interpretations or not.

We will look at this more fully on Spratling Table post.

While at this point, it is on balance, probable that Helson was present for the whole of the undressing of Nichols, the possibility that he was not cannot be conclusively ruled out. We will need to look carefully at what Baxter says himself on the subject and any comments from senior Police Officer later in part 2, and again in greater detail in part 3 before we can reach a definitive conclusion.

[Elamarna]

Bucks Row Protect part2 post 14- Helson











Lets now look at Inspector Helson.

For the first time we get to look at official documents, rather than press reports. It is only a single report from Helson dated 7th September, ( Report 11) and I shall look at this first.

It begins by giving some background information on Nichols and then states that the post mortem confirms that the murder took place at the site body was found.
It makes it clear that local watchmen have been spoken to as well as police on adjoining beats (Thain and Mizen plus possibly the beat directly to the north of Thomas street and maybe even the officer on the Southern side of Whitechapel road. ) and nothing has come to light.

He then gives a good timetable of Nichols known placements before her death, it then discussed Pizer but admits nothing on him and finishes by mentioning Abberline.

After my big build up it really gives little information, but what is does give should be considered more reliable than the press.

We now revert to the press reports of the inquest

The first question is the time he arrives at the mortuary?
The second is he present when Nichols is undressed?

First question, we do not know the exact time he arrived, but Report 3 says slightly after 8, Reports 4 & 5 say between 8-9am.

He says he was informed at 6.45 or a quarter to seven in all reports except Report 11(police report ) & 10 which is short and gives few details.


Reports 2, 7 & 8 say he was informed of the murder at home, he then goes to Bethnal Green Police Station to get the full details, before proceeding to the Mortuary.

Reports 1 & 3 , do not mention his being at home, but confirm that he first went to Bethnal Green Police Station before proceeding to the Mortuary.

The majority of reports do not include the information about going to Bethnal Green, but just say he went to the mortuary. (Reports:4, 5, 6 ,9(but they imply he may have been to the station first), 13, 12, 14 & 15.).

Does this fit with undressing details as reported by Mann and Hatfield?
We will also need to check with Spratling and Llewellyn.

Llewellyn is clear he is informed of the other injuries ( The ones he missed!) at approximately 5.30 and headed to the mortuary at once, it appears he carried out a fuller check than in Bucks Row, but not a full Post mortem at this stage, without removing the clothing, instead one assumes just lifting it up and back over the torso.

Spratling says he sent for doctor at about 5.30am, while these times may not marry up exactly they are close enough to suggest Llewellyn was on site well before 6am.

The Mortuary staff say they opened up at about 5, the body was moved into the mortuary from the yard, and at this point Spratling noticed the Abdominal wounds.

All of which seems to fit together fairly well.

The Mortuary staff (Robert Mann), says that breakfast was taken before the body was undressed.

One point to note, Mann does not say how long after breakfast they started undressing, Hatfield arrived at 6.30 and so maybe he and Mann at breakfast then, surely there must have been a gap of upto an hour after this, if Helson was present when they started to undress Nichols..


What does Helson say himself?

He says she was fully dressed when he arrived and he was present when the clothing was remove. (Reports: 1, 4, 9 & 12.).
In other reports he is simply recorded as saying that she was fully clothed, not that he was there when she was undressed. ( Reports 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14 &15).
While one report does not explicitly say so but implies such ( Report 10).

There are some minor discrepancies over her clothing and which buttons are undone from Helson

Report 2, 3 & 10 say 5 buttons done up on ulster whilst 2 or 3 undone on dress.

Report 5 just says 2-3 undone on dress.

Report 6 is vague and just says a few.

Reports 7 & 8 are different and say on the dress/bodice about 4 button undone

Reports 1, 9, & 12 say buttoned up down to middle.

Reports 13, 14, & 15 says with exception of 2 or 3 was buttoned up.

Not 100% agreement but not likely to be important, just demonstrating how reports differ and make mistakes.

We can now look at blood on clothing this will need to be compared to the comments of Spratling, Thain, Green et al in part 3.

There was blood in the Hair ( Reports: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 13, 14 & 15), however such is not mentioned in some Reports: 4, 7, 8, 9 &12.

Report 1 says no blood on petticoats or lower part of ulster, but back of bodice and top of ulster had adsorbed good deal.

Report 2 says blood on chemise at back and some on front, however no blood on petticoats, dress or Ulster, however it says :

“The only part of her garments saturated with blood was the back of the neck of the dress and ulster, which had absorbed a great deal of blood Between the drum and the ulster there was clotted blood, and the hair at the back of the head was clotted with blood.”


Drum would appear to be a typo for dress, therefore there was clotted blood in this area.

Report 3 says blood on chemise and also on abdomen. And that there was much on clothing behind neck, and it had absorbed great deal.

Report 4 says no blood on seat of ulster or petticoats, but near neck bodice was saturated.

Reports 5 & 6 say about collars of dress and ulster, but none on back of dress.

Reports 7 & 8 say no blood on petticoats, however the back of dress around shoulders was soaked, the Ulster was also saturated and there was clotted blood between it and dress.

Reports13, 14 & 15 report blood about neck, on the dress collar and ulster but none on back of skirts.

Report 10 says only part saturated was back of the dress near the neck, no comment on Ulster.

Reports 9 & 12 make no comments on the blood and clothing at all.

The reports are unfortunately not fully consistant, they do however allow for a broad picture to be drawn. We can say that there appears to be no blood on the lower garments, such as petticoats, nor on the lower parts of the Ulster, nor dress, but it is unclear how far the blood does stretch.
The description “seat of ulster” is used, one assumes this, the part of the coat one would sit on, that is around the buttocks. So not as far has that, but its unfortunately no clearer.

The areas of clothing round the neck are saturated, this is supported by the reports which mention amounts of clotted blood between the dress and the Ulster, obviously both had absorbed so much blood, that blood sat on the material and clotted there.

One last possibility which we must at least note, if Helson was not present when the clothing was removed, his description can only be of clothing after it had been discarded, or he took it from an earlier witness, possibly Spratling.

However one must say such is not supported at all and very unlikely.

We now move on to the wounds and descriptions of the body.

The body had not been recently washed (Reports 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 & 10.).

There are reports of bruising to face and jaw (Reports:1, 3, 4, 7 & 8.).

The abdominal wounds are visible with the stays on (Reports : 1, 3 & 9.).

The wounds could have been done without removal of the stays (Reports: 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 & 14.).

No Clothing had been cut by the killer (Reports: 2, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14 & 15.).

There was no sign of a struggle struggle, no marks on arms (Reports: 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 or 15.).

There was no sign that any rings had been removed (Reports: 7 & 8); despite stories in press to the contrary.

We can now look at his reports for the area of the murder:

There was no blood on gate or pavement in Bucks Row. (Reports: 1, 3, 4, 7 & 8).

There was only one spot which might be blood in Brady Street (Reports: 1,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14 & 15).

He believed took the attack took place on spot (Reports:1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 &15.).

When asked about the apparently small amount of blood from the wounds, he comments that the blood from the abdominal wounds, seems to have flowed INTO body. (Reports: 1, 3 & 4). On the issue of that from the neck, he mentions it just once, and he seems very clear. (Report 3.)

He clearly states however that he did not visit the area until after the was blood washed away, which will have a great effect on what he reported. (Reports: 1, 3, 9 & 12.).

The comments about the clothing not being disarrange are really of little use, has he did not see body at scene.

[Elamarna]

Bucks Row Project part 2 post 15 - The Slaughter House Men

[Elamarna]

Bucks Row Project part 2 post 15a - The Slaughter House Men











We now turn to the question of the Slaughter men from Winthrop street and the some what confusing tale they tell.

We have inquest testimony from only one of the 3 men, Henry Tomkins, and an interview from James Mumford the most senior of the 3 men.

It is of some interest that Tomkins was the man called to the inquest, did the police just pick one of the 3? Did he volunteer? or was he put forward by the other two? We do not know the answer, it would be enlightening maybe.
Mumford being the most senior would have been the obvious choice, Tomkins an odd one, as he was the most inexperienced, and the newest having only recently arrived in London from Manchester.

I shall discuss this more in part 3.

I shall look at Mumford’s interview first (Report 7), obviously he is not under oath, however in the circumstances he may actually be more forthcoming.
The Slaughter men had obviously been accused of being involved in the murders, this is backed by the writing on the gates of the yard, which Mumford talks of and press reports such as the Echo 4th September (press table report # 20), that say the police are looking at more than one suspect and expect another person not directly involved to make a confession soon, the slaughter men are not named, but it clear they are being targeted.

The first point of note is the time Mumford says the work hours, 8.15 until 6 or 6.30. this we will later compare to the times given by Tomkins. It should of course be noted that he says these are his working hours, maybe the other two worked shorter hours and Mumford waited on his own for the arrival of the boss.

It is clear from the interview that Mumford is very angry they are being targeted, and appears to be very open with the interviewer whom he believes is going to giving a fair picture; However it is also clear from the questions asked such as :

"Do they take their knives with them?"

And comments such as

"No one, of course, even hints anything against you men," remarked the interviewer" ;

when the Echo itself on the same day publishes Report # 20 in press table, that this is not the case and the interviewer is attempting to trip Mumford up.

He says that he remained behind for 10 minutes, after they were informed of the murder and that it was Tomkins and Britton who went to see body first not him, this is has we shall see at odds with the statements of Tomkins; one is left to wonder why?
We shall return to this later and discuss it more fully in part 3.

Mumford then asks why the local lodging houses have not been checked, he says there are 5 or 6 in the area, on the surface that seems a clear question.
However one cannot but help remembering Mrs Greens comments about “disorderly houses,” and her knowing of none in the area and one is left to wonder if “lodging houses” may not be just lodging houses?
However there are no sources to support this, other than question by a juror to Mrs Green that there were there were several disorderly houses in nearby Thomas street, and so we can explore that possibility no further.


Lets us now look at the testimony of Tomkins, he comes across as a poorly educated man, and without doubt a misogynist, we shall return here later.

Firstly he says that he normally finished about 4am, Report 2.

Mr Baxter questions this as he believed they were supposed to work until 6 ( Report: 6, 8, 14, 15 & 16.).
In Report 5 the actual question asked by Baxter is not given, however from the answer it is clear he is again asking about the finishing time.

Tomkins replies to Baxter, that they work until the work is done, and then leave. (Reports 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15 & 16.)

He says he was informed of the murder by a police man at about 4.15am and that he and Mumford went first and were later followed Britton. (Reports 2, 3, 5, 11 & 13.).

Reports 4, 9, 7 & 10 just says two went initially and were followed some time after by third man; however no names are given.

Report 1 seems to say all 3 went, it gives no break in the times they attend, of course it may just be badly written being at odds with the rest of the reports.

Interestingly in report 3 Tomkins says they he went back to Bucks Row with PC Thain.


Lets briefly look at these statements.

The claim that they left work when completed appears to be contrary to that of Mumford interview (Report 7), however it is possible he remained himself until the official time while the other two left, in return he may have had other rewards.

It seems that the working hours were very lax indeed, there was along break about 12.20 and apparently only two of the 3 took it, one having to remain on-site at all times, and this may be the clue to much of what is said, the need to not let the employers know the building was left unattended at times.
According to Mumford the governor did not arrive until 6 or 6 30 report 7, so there was plenty of leeway for finishing early, or maybe starting late or taking extra breaks.

It is very odd that there is a disagreement over who actually went first to Bucks Row, this may just be that all 3 went, and they did not get their stories sorted.
Swanson in his report (police table, Report 11) says they were interviewed separately and could not communicate, however he does not say when this occurred.

With regards to the comment he left with Thain, while possible, it means Thain remains at the slaughter house for up to 5 minutes, if Tomkins is telling the truth about the time Thain appeared and the time he, Tomkins, left. It seems unlikely.


Let us look at several other issues.

1. Tomkins comes across as a clear misogynist, (Reports 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15 & 16); but is this actually the case?

Is he talking about women in general or just prostitutes? It is a real possibility given the questions asked by Baxter:

“I suppose people do come and look you up? “

And the follow up


“Were there any women about?”

it is very possible that Baxter is trying too see if the unfortunates used the yard at all.

Tomkins indeed makes a very big thing about his dislike of women, almost he complains too much, one wonders if he is trying to stop any suggestions of visits, or maybe even use of the yard. One must admit there is nothing to support any such idea.

However it is of interest when looking at the above, that Reports 11 & 13 says women came to yard at times, One wonders what for, and how often?

Tom Wescott in his recent book quotes a letter from a Col Fraser, dated Oct 3 stating one of the 3 slaughter men is known to hate women, however this may be taken from the inquest reports rather than local knowledge or opinion.


2. None of the slaughter men saw or heard anyone from 1am until Thain arrived at 4.15.(Reports: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16.).

Tomkins only says Thain came to collect his cape when he is pressed by Baxter, he does not volunteer the information, (Reports 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 & 16.).
Report 4 adds some information by saying that Thain left it because it was a fine night, however there is no comment of when this was done.

There are 2 major issues here, if the only person seen was Thain at 4.15 to collect his cape, how did the cape get there?
If the Tomkins is telling the truth it must have been left before 1am.
Why did Baxter not ask for clarification? It may be that he was by that stage frustrated by Tomkins already somewhat evasive answers and it slipped, or he did ask and the question and answer was not recorded by any of the attending press, or he did not want to ask the question.

The second issue is that the reports above are contrary to the claims of PC Neil (Neil Table Reports 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12. http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...3&postcount=11 ) that he saw them between 3.15-3.20, it is of course possible they did not see him, but it seems unlikely.

3. The reports including Mumford’s interview make it very clear that the yard was too far away from the murder site to have heard any screams.

Let us now return to the issue of the slaughter men going to Bucks Row, there is no mention of seeing Mulshaw, although some have suggested the man who spoke to him may have been Britton. However there is little to support this idea other than he apparently stayed behind according to Tomkins and arrived later, it could equally have been the unnamed man whom Neil saw walking down Bucks Row after Llewellyn arrived.

At first when asked by Mr Baxter about who was already on site, he appears to be very evasive about the reported ordinary men seen there. This includes not being precise and vague in replying and even claiming he cannot read, and exposing himself to some ridicule. (Reports 2, 5, 6, 8, 14 & 16.). In Report 5, he claims he was in “a hurry” this appears no where else and could be misreporting, however if it is not, why does he linger at the murder site?

In report 2 Report Mr Baxter asks a specific question, which is not reported elsewhere?

""Are you sure there were not three people there?" asked the Coroner."

Why 3 ?

It is true mr Purkiss says 2 or 3 ( Purkis table report 7, 8 & 9. http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...6&postcount=56 ) however he does not give his testimony until 17th September.

Eventually Baxter gets the following information form Tomkins:

When he arrived in Bucks Row:

He saw 3-4 policemen, (Reports: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15 & 16); however in Reports 9 & 10, he says there was also a sergeant present.

He says the Doctor was present.(Reports: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 & 16)

And finally he agrees 2 men were there. (Reports: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14 & 16.).

The police and the doctor can be accounted for, but who were the men?

Neil claimed that the slaughter men were the first to arrive, (Neil table reports 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 &12. http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...3&postcount=11 ) however in report 2 of the same table these two men are two who had been knocked up in the immediate vicinity of the murder site. This has lead me to ask could they be Purkiss and Green?

However Purkiss clearly refutes this, when he talks of 2 OR 3 men being there when he looks. It should also be noted that Purkiss does not say if he recognises any of these men or not.

So if not he who else?
Of those we know who the police claim were knocked up, and we are left with only Green, Lilley and possibly the watchman in Schneider's factory. So could they be these 3 unknown men?

If not then who?

Tomkins says did not know the men, however Britton lived at 25 Bucks Row, less than 2 minutes from the murder site, surely he would know local men, at least by sight, it seems strange that he did not say anything to Tomkins regarding them before the inquest..

Finally he says they stayed until the body was removed, by which time there was a crowd of 10-12 persons, this fits with Llewellyn’s comments .
(Llewellyn table, Report 5. http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=53).

This may suggest a wait of a few minutes at least(Reports: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16). However judging by comments that crowd had grown it maybe considerably longer. (Reports: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 14, 15 & 16).

One must note however that Neil says that the slaughter men arrive as body is about to go on ambulance and were first general pubic to arrive apart from man who passed unknown. It does not ring true. (Neil table, Reports 2 & 8. http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...3&postcount=11 )

Tomkins also say he heard no cart in the area. (Reports: 3, 5, 6, 8, 14, 15 & 16).

Swanson in his official report October 19th (Police Table, Report 11.) says there is no evidence against the men at all.

The whole behaviour is very odd to say the least, there are without doubt lies told and truths withheld. There are hints of what may have happened, involving various loyalties, and disloyalties and of course Thain’s cape.

I shall discuss these at far great depth with possible solutions at part 3.

[Elamarna]

Remaing posts

There are now 4 posts left:

Spratling,
Baxter.
The police in general,
And the press reports,

the 1st three will be posted i hope by the end of the weekend, possibly sooner.

The Press reports will not be until sometime next week.



steve

[Elamarna]

Just wanted to make a few comments about how difficult some of these Sources are to work with.

We do not have the official transcript for the Nichols inquest, and so have no option but to use the press reports.

It must be clear to most by now, that there are many discrepancies between the various reports, some small and probably unimportant, others not so.

the post on the mortuary staff and if Helson was there, is a difficult one to asses, although other comments by others in other places may help.

The Slaughter house is even more difficult, questions which should logically have been asked appear not to have been, or have been completely missed by the reporters.

This is one of the reasons I will go onto the Mitre Square murder next, after a good break, we have the official transcript and it will be part of that project to look at the differences between official and not.

Of course there will still be much difficulty over the GSG



Steve

[MrBarnett]

Slaughtermen

Interesting stuff, Steve.

Something else to consider is how busy the slaughtermen were on the night Polly was killed. Mumford was a bit vague about how many horses they had killed that night - 'three or four' was his guess.

According to William Gordon in The Horse World Of London (1893):

The last scene does not take long. In two seconds a horse is killed; in a little over half an hour his hide is in a heap of dozens, his feet are in another heap, his bones are boiling for oil, his flesh is cooking for cat's meat.

And John Harrison, the founder of Harrison, Barber, had this to say about his employee 'Potler':

He can turn a live horse into a clean-picked skeleton in five and twenty minutes.

Admittedly 'Potler' was something of a prodigy, but surely the Winthrop Street three weren't exactly stretched, if, between the three of them, they only processed three or four horses during their 7/8 hour shift. What did they do with their spare time?

Bearing in mind that the boss, Alfred Barber, lived on the premises, it may have been a bit risky to skive off to the pub for any length of time. If you believe Tomkins, they didn't go to the pub at all that night, they only got as far as 'the court' (Woods Buildings). However, his statement to that effect seems to be contradicted by his ability to describe the various women in the Whitechapel Road.

I'll wait until you put up your conclusions in part 3 before I add the remainder of my two penn'orth.

[Elamarna]

Interesting stuff, Steve.

Something else to consider is how busy the slaughtermen were on the night Polly was killed. Mumford was a bit vague about how many horses they had killed that night - 'three or four' was his guess.

According to William Gordon in The Horse World Of London (1893):

The last scene does not take long. In two seconds a horse is killed; in a little over half an hour his hide is in a heap of dozens, his feet are in another heap, his bones are boiling for oil, his flesh is cooking for cat's meat.

And John Harrison, the founder of Harrison, Barber, had this to say about his employee 'Potler':

He can turn a live horse into a clean-picked skeleton in five and twenty minutes.

Admittedly 'Potler' was something of a prodigy, but surely the Winthrop Street three weren't exactly stretched, if, between the three of them, they only processed three or four horses during their 7/8 hour shift. What did they do with their spare time?

Bearing in mind that the boss, Alfred Barber, lived on the premises, it may have been a bit risky to skive off to the pub for any length of time. If you believe Tomkins, they didn't go to the pub at all that night, they only got as far as 'the court' (Woods Buildings). However, his statement to that effect seems to be contradicted by his ability to describe the various women in the Whitechapel Road.

I'll wait until you put up your conclusions in part 3 before I add the remainder of my two penn'orth.

Hi Gary

thanks for the input, yes they certainly do not seem to be over worked, while barber may have lived on site, i doubt he was in the business of checking up on them in the early hours, he may have just been happy to get the work done and no trouble.

Do we know by the way if they were paid a set rate or by the horse? that could have a bearing on things.

To me this may be the most interest of many of the issues revolving around Bucks Row.

Its not are they lying? they clearly are about many thinks. its why are they lying that’s the question.

Is it linked in any way to Nichols? had see been there first that night? Suppose it cannot be ruled out?

or are the men hiding something else? from the owner perhaps? from the Police?

It is so easy to go off into flights of pure fancy.


Be my guest and chip in now if you like? Would actually appreciate it.

Steve