The Bucks Row Project part 2

[Joshua Rogan]

they certainly do not seem to be over worked

My understanding is that the horse-slaughtering trade was in a sense seasonal, in that many more horses died or had to be killed during the winter months. Presumably this was due to the wetter weather causing ailments and making the roads slippery for hooves. So August would have been a slower period, but I've no idea how much busier they would be in the winter months.

[Elamarna]

My understanding is that the horse-slaughtering trade was in a sense seasonal, in that many more horses died or had to be killed during the winter months. Presumably this was due to the wetter weather causing ailments and making the roads slippery for hooves. So August would have been a slower period, but I've no idea how much busier they would be in the winter months.

Good point Joshua,

Not sure if i highlighted it but in at least one report Tomkins says they could work to 10am I think. So obviously the daily work varied considerably.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;425793]

Dear Steve,

It is very interesting to read your ideas about the sources. I will comment on certain parts of it and I will avoid long discussions if I can, so that your thread will not become a set of long discussions early on.

So here we go. And sorry if I use an unpleasant tone sometimes, the reason is I want you to see what the problems might be with the ideas I am commenting on. Like this one:

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

Were they Jack the Ripper?

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 )

"Ring true"? Was Neil lying?

The whole behaviour is very odd to say the least, there are without doubt lies told and truths withheld.

The newspaper articles describe events on a level of minutes. So here we have the whole set of problems that are inherent in the Lechmere idea. Minutiae in Buck´s Row. Minutiae in Whitechapel.

You saw the list I published here earlier with the relevant problems.

And from various descriptions of minutes in sources which are not reliable comes now a huge leap into Conspiracy Heaven. There were "a whole (!) odd behaviour", "without doubt (!!) lies told" and "truths withheld".

There are "various loyalties" and "disloyalties". And "of course" (?) Thain´s cape. Because you do not have a source explaining to you how Thain´s cape got there.

This is beginning to look like the Lechmere idea. And it is understandable. Minutiae is a tool for anything. It allows a lot and is impossible to disprove.

Because the sources are old, and very often people in them could not give the exact timings. They stated what they thought correct and remembered or guessed. Again, I refer you to my list with problems.

So Minutiae is a good tool for postulating almost anything. It may even look scientific. I mean, who can dispute "mathematics"?

Cheers, Pierre

[MrBarnett]

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

Inviting me to chip in with knacker data is a bit risky...

I'm pleased that you don't seem to go along with the view that because the WS3 were (apparently) thoroughly checked out by the police, it's game over as far as they are concerned. I'm not suggesting that the three of them were responsible for Polly's murder, but I think they deserve a bit more consideration before we turn over the page.

[Elamarna]

Pierre
(Sorry for the style of reply, but in pub on my phone so not easy quoting.)

I will respond equally briefly, and no issue with the tone at all.

Were they Jack the Ripper?


Not what I was thinking of; can't be ruled out. However unlikely


"Ring true"? Was Neil lying?

Maybe not telling the whole truth, or could just be the fault of the sources.

The newspaper articles describe events on a level of minutes. So here we have the whole set of problems that are inherent in the Lechmere idea. Minutiae in Buck´s Row. Minutiae in Whitechapel.

I am not looking at minutes here, just who was where? Such is not minutiae has I understand the term.


You saw the list I published here earlier with the relevant problems.

And from various descriptions of minutes in sources which are not reliable comes now a huge leap into Conspiracy Heaven. There were "a whole (!) odd behaviour", "without doubt (!!) lies told" and "truths withheld".

There are "various loyalties" and "disloyalties". And "of course" (?) Thain´s cape. Because you do not have a source explaining to you how Thain´s cape got there.


There needs be no conspiracy just a mistake in the reporting, however it is sometimes interesting to throw wild ideas out and see what comes back.

This is beginning to look like the Lechmere idea. And it is understandable. Minutiae is a tool for anything. It allows a lot and is impossible to disprove.

The difference is that I won't push ideas I cannot support, and indeed do I not say there is nothing to support many of the possible ideas?
The major issue is just that the sources are really bad; and in my view that needs to be shown.

Because the sources are old, and very often people in them could not give the exact timings. They stated what they thought correct and remembered or guessed. Again, I refer you to my list with problems.

Minutes here are not important. And I do not go into any talk about them.

What is of interest is:

Why is the arrival of the cape not mentioned? It is probably just an oversight.

Were the slaughter men conning their employer?

Why did they disagree over who went to Bucks Row?

And who were the men reported by Purkiss?

Now in all honesty we will probably never know; and while it is academically interesting it has little real bearing on the Murder of Nichols, unless it turns out he was one or more of the slaughter men.

So Minutiae is a good tool for postulating almost anything. It may even look scientific. I mean, who can dispute "mathematics"?

Cheers, Pierre

Pierre
I posted these 3 together for a purpose. I considered leaving Helson out, but he is so closely tieded into the Mortuary issues I decided to include him, somewhat unfairly.
Part of the purpose was to illustrate how with bad sources we can go anywhere.
And I did give a warning a few days back.

Some of the ideas I mention or hint at are too far out to even consider taking further.
Some may have a kernel of something to them.

Of course I have written all of part 2 at the same time And am aware of something's in the remaining sections which will dismiss some ideas and support others. Of course it does not look like that in the postings so far.

For instance there are important comments still to come which may have an impact on the Scam.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Inviting me to chip in with knacker data is a bit risky...

I'm pleased that you don't seem to go along with the view that because the WS3 were (apparently) thoroughly checked out by the police, it's game over as far as they are concerned. I'm not suggesting that the three of them were responsible for Polly's murder, but I think they deserve a bit more consideration before we turn over the page.

Not Risky Gary, good data and comments only serves to correct mistakes and refine ideas.

I agree entirely with your comments.

Innocent of any involvement with Nichols, yes.
Innocent of other things, not so sure.

Steve

[DJA]

My understanding is that the horse-slaughtering trade was in a sense seasonal, in that many more horses died or had to be killed during the winter months. Presumably this was due to the wetter weather causing ailments and making the roads slippery for hooves. So August would have been a slower period, but I've no idea how much busier they would be in the winter months.

It had been a very cold and wet Summer leading into a wet Autumn.

[MrBarnett]

In 1867, over a good dinner, John Harrison, a retired businessman, and some of his mates made the decision to buy the largest knacker's business in London: the late, legendary, Jack Atcheler's premises in Belle Isle, Islington.

It was a speculative investment, the group had no experience of the cats' meat trade, but it was pitched to them as a sure thing - Atcheler proudly advertised himself as 'Horse Slaughterer to Her Majesty' - and the investors initially thought that all they would have to do would be to turn up at the yard once a month to have a dinner with their managers and collect their dosh.

However, they very soon discovered that their investment was actually making a loss and that the main reason was that their employees were robbing them blind.

One Saturday afternoon in 1871 Harrison made a surprise visit to the Belle Isle yard and discovered Henry Tomkins' dad, William, attempting to hide a quantity of stolen horse fat in a manure heap. Harrison insisted on prosecuting Tomkins and his accomplice, named Dawes, who admitted to having systematically robbed their employer for a number of years. On conviction, William Tomkins was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.

Shortly after his release, William Tomkins relocated his family to Newton Heath, then on the outskirts of Manchester, where he and his sons worked as horse-slaughterers until returning to London sometime between November, 1887 and April, 1888.

In April, 1888, William Tomkins was discovered in an alcoholic coma in, or nearby, HB's yard in Winthrop Street by one of his sons (it is unclear which one). He did not recover, and his inquest was conducted by none other than the East London Coroner, Wynne Baxter, who would later preside over the inquest of Polly Nichols.

Presumably whichever of his sons had discovered William (Henry, Thomas or possibly Robert) would have given evidence before Baxter at his father's inquest. Was Polly's inquest the second time Henry had appeared before Baxter? Is that why he was such an awkward witness on that occasion?

[Elamarna]

In 1867, over a good dinner, John Harrison, a retired businessman, and some of his mates made the decision to buy the largest knacker's business in London: the late, legendary, Jack Atcheler's premises in Belle Isle, Islington.

It was a speculative investment, the group had no experience of the cats' meat trade, but it was pitched to them as a sure thing - Atcheler proudly advertised himself as 'Horse Slaughterer to Her Majesty' - and the investors initially thought that all they would have to do would be to turn up at the yard once a month to have a dinner with their managers and collect their dosh.

However, they very soon discovered that their investment was actually making a loss and that the main reason was that their employees were robbing them blind.

One Saturday afternoon in 1871 Harrison made a surprise visit to the Belle Isle yard and discovered Henry Tomkins' dad, William, attempting to hide a quantity of stolen horse fat in a manure heap. Harrison insisted on prosecuting Tomkins and his accomplice, named Dawes, who admitted to having systematically robbed their employer for a number of years. On conviction, William Tomkins was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.

Shortly after his release, William Tomkins relocated his family to Newton Heath, then on the outskirts of Manchester, where he and his sons worked as horse-slaughterers until returning to London sometime between November, 1887 and April, 1888.

In April, 1888, William Tomkins was discovered in an alcoholic coma in, or nearby, HB's yard in Winthrop Street by one of his sons (it is unclear which one). He did not recover, and his inquest was conducted by none other than the East London Coroner, Wynne Baxter, who would later preside over the inquest of Polly Nichols.

Presumably whichever of his sons had discovered William (Henry, Thomas or possibly Robert) would have given evidence before Baxter at his father's inquest. Was Polly's inquest the second time Henry had appeared before Baxter? Is that why he was such an awkward witness on that occasion?

Very interesting Gary.

Strange he should end up working there.


Steve

[MrBarnett]

Very interesting Gary.

Strange he should end up working there.


Steve

I think John Harrison, having founded HB in 1885/6, may have sold out by 1887.

But the horse-slaughtering world was a small one, I don't believe for a minute that Alfred Barber, the boss at Winthrop Street in 1888, wasn't aware of the Tomkins's history.

[Elamarna]

Presumably whichever of his sons had discovered William (Henry, Thomas or possibly Robert) would have given evidence before Baxter at his father's inquest. Was Polly's inquest the second time Henry had appeared before Baxter? Is that why he was such an awkward witness on that occasion?

Which of course means even if he did not give evidence at his father's inquest it remains a real probability that he attended and saw Baxter in action.


Steve

[MrBarnett]

Which of course means even if he did not give evidence at his father's inquest it remains a real probability that he attended and saw Baxter in action.


Steve

Yes, and his dad had drunk himself to death. My own grandad appeared before Baxter at the inquest of his mate who had been killed in a drunken brawl. Baxter did not approve of people who had, in his opinion, overindulged.

[Elamarna]

Yes, and his dad had drunk himself to death. My own grandad appeared before Baxter at the inquest of his mate who had been killed in a drunken brawl. Baxter did not approve of people who had, in his opinion, overindulged.

So some of the apparent evasion, may be nothing more than being awkward because of previous comments. Certainly a possibility.

Got a feeling I will not come to positive conclusion on these guys. Almost certainly going to suggest several alternative ideas.

Steve

[MrBarnett]

HB had more than three employees at the time. I doubt that the three men we know of were the only people who attended the yard that night.

[Elamarna]

HB had more than three employees at the time. I doubt that the three men we know of were the only people who attended the yard that night.

Do we have any sources for that Gary ?I just find the whole issue so interesting .

Steve