The Bucks Row Project part 2

[Elamarna]

And I have to remind you that you are trained within the field of medicine while I am trained within the field of history.
I would never presume to know more than you, or to make better interpretations, within that field. How come you believe that you are more capable of making historical interpretations than do historians, given that you in fact have no historical training at all?
Please understand that I am not being rude. I want to understand how it is that you can believe that you know more about historical methods than do historians. How is that possible, Steve?

My dear Pierre, you are in fact just saying that your interpretation is more valid, as a trained historian, than that of a no trained person.

Such an argument leads one to the inevitable conclusion that your interpretations are superior to all others posted on this forum, in which case we should all stop should we not?
.
We have been here before more than once have we not?

While training in a particular discipline may give advantages in interpretation of data, unless we have have data that can only be interpreted in one way (experiment A gives result x 99% of the time, extreme I know, but I am sure you get the meaning), that interpretation will always be open to question.

And that was my original comments, that I interpreted the Police reports(and while I only quoted the one of the 19th September there are additional Police Sources), different to you, or rather you interpreted it differently to me.

Your fall back into what is a form of academic elitism is nothing more than “your view is better than mine”. Of course you are entitled to believe that, but why not just accept we disagree rather than take that stance.

Let me remind you that have been discussing medical questions with Fisherman. He has no medical training at all. And still he thinks he knows more than you on some medical issues. So how come you want to put yourself in that sort of position?

There is a difference, much of the debate you mention with Christer on medical matters has not been in interpretation, but on establish medical facts, Bleeding rates, depth of organs. On such I do have an advantage; however at least one poster Kjab3112 has a big advantage over me.

When it comes to interpretation, so long has Christer uses the correct data to come to his conclusions, his view is no less valid than mine,
One of the biggest areas has been over the phrase “all the vital areas”, unfortunately, this is not a medical term, the description is therefore open to various interpretations, and the advantage I may have over Christer in specific knowledge is of no help, it does not mean I am right just because I have the greater knowledge.

It is not a matter of "monopoly". It is a matter of historical methods. And you have not studied historical methods. And Steve: historians do not "read" sources. We analyze them. So you do not even use historical methods.

Semantics Pierre, to analyze a written source it must be read, you know exactly what I meant, I really do fail to see why you are responding this way.

What I find most bewildering is that you suggested 5 hypotheses for why Paul was not asked about the exchange with Mizen in an earlier post, 3 of those I agreed with, Yet you still wish to argue, which is pointless as you do not know my hypothesis.

It is utterly disturbing to hear this from you. I am truly sorry to hear it. Especially since you are the one who told us that now, indeed, you would show us the work based on "real science".
It is just words, Steve. There is no validity in it. "If", "could", and "would". Anyone can generate those words for anything. But you said you were going to use "real science"!

Why do you find it disturbing? I am merely floating ideas to get a response from the forum, most of whom do not write in academic language themselves, it is illogical to ask questions in a language the audience do not use.
I have suggested some ideas which I happily admit are unrealistic or at least unprovable.
As you right say later in this post all I have done so far is present sources, I have not gone into the analysis section of the work yet, do you not see that, I have to ask?

And there are sources for this "separate investigation" showing us exactly what?
And where are the sources?

Sources for it?

Are you seriously saying that as those records no longer exist, we must assume no investigation took place by the police that was separate from the inquest, indeed we do not even have those sources do we?
I suggested that when one looked at and analyzed both the testimony of the 17th September and the Police report of the 19th it was not unreasonable to hypothesize that the Police had by this date reached a conclusion on what they believed.
I am not going to discuss my entire hypothesis before I am ready, anymore than you will.

You wrote in # 86:
And since you mention Swanson and Thain I thought you meant the police.

Yes on a specific section about the slaughter men, It was also made very clear that I did not consider there was any connection to the murder, other than that they went to the scene after Thain informed them, when he collected his cape.
How that got there has no bearing on the murder, nor do any suggestions I may have made about the conduct of the 3 men.
Unfortunately for them, the 3 came under suspicion from the press, and that is why Swanson was mentioned, he stated they had been investigated and cleared.

One reason is that you have no research question, no analyze method and no systematic source criticism. Another reason is your language. It is not academic but you use words like "if" and "would". That is why I struggle, Steve.

Sorry you have no idea what questions I am asking, I have not posted that section yet. And of course there is no overall systematic source criticism yet, although you must admit a little has been shown. Such as Paul's Lloyds weekly article, Mrs Greens Testimony and comment on general press statements at the beginning of part 2.

Pierre I am not writing this for an academic audience, but for this forum, if I were to decide to publish my work, I would certainly not aim it at an academic audience. However that does not mean I would not write an article for an academic journal, and if so I would use the appropriate language for that audience.,

Sources? What excerpts from those sources?

I have already mentioned some, but given I have not published the full hypothesis on the scam, I will not at this point go further.

We will see.

Yes we will

Have you answered a question about that?

Yes I have, several, however Paul’s testimony is peripheral to my hypothesis, it is not central to it, nor essential to it.

Mizen had interest in it since Cross contradicted him.

Yes I agree and the same could be said for Cross as Mizen's statement was contrary to his.
However it was you who said no one any interest in such a question, so your reply is somewhat baffling to me.

Mizen was not there and therefore he was not able to ask the question. That is just an historical fact.

That is irrelevant, he would not be asking a question, any questions come from Baxter or the jury.

No, you are wrong dear Steve. I do accept what you say. But I don´t know what your idea is, as you said, and as I said we will see.

If that is so why do you repeat the comments about Loyalty when I have said it has no bearing on the issues under discussion?

So a more academic language would certainly help you.

I have already addressed the use of language above, as I am sure you have seen

Oh, dear. That is not a research question, Steve. You can not "gather a full account of "all the events and people surrounding the murder in Bucks Row"". You can ONLY "gather articles and other sources and publish them on the forum".

The research questions are contained in the final section. My aim was to draw together has much data as possible, in order to give a reasonably full account from the sources of what occurred in and around Bucks Row on the morning of 31st September 1888.
is there really a need for what appears to be semantics?

You have published sources, which can be useful for people who want to "read" them or even analyze them.

Which was part of the aim. And is the only part I am sure I will publish separately, minus my comments.

But didn´t we all know that already? Honestly?

I think not, we may well have suspected such, but no research had been done on several of the issues and that which had been was looking at issues from either a pro or anti Lechmere/Cross viewpoint.

"There is no source to support this". Yes, there is. There are sources even. The inquest sources where Mizen is referred. Or have they vanished? Or are they hallucinations? Or have the post modern condition confused everyone so much that they think they can treat the sources as television series and data as data games?

We have only the single source from Mizen, there are no others that I am aware of, if you have recently found some for your research so be it.
Your interpretation is based on his testimony and your interpretation that Cross/Lechmere half lied. there is no independent 2nd source which supports your hypothesis.
That of course does not mean you are wrong, only that you may be, just has i may be.

What exactly do you mean by that?

Mizen says Paul is not involved in the conversation. Actually he doesn’t implicitly say such, he just does not mention him.
Lechmere says Paul was involved in the conversation in his testimony.
Paul is not asked.

OK. "No data". Cross otherwise Lechmere. Always Lechmere.

Your interpretation of why he gave gave Cross, there are others. You may be correct. Has you have said above we will see.

This question should have it´s own thread actually.

If you have enough to specifically support the wearing of a uniform by the killer, start the thread my friend. you know i do not rule out the possibility that the killer, if not Lechmere, may at the very least have heard Lechmere enter Bucks Row, it is of course also possible Lechmere may have seen some movement, but that is pure speculation. the sources do not support either view.

Cheers

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;427710]

It's late now. I will reply to this tomorrow Pierre.


Steve

No problem Steve. And of course the questions are relevant for the case, and it is not a matter of personal conflict or trying to be better than others.

It is a matter of scientific approaches and about generating knowledge with academic methods.

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;427706]

And I have to remind you that you are trained within the field of medicine while I am trained within the field of history.

I would never presume to know more than you, or to make better interpretations, within that field. How come you believe that you are more capable of making historical interpretations than do historians, given that you in fact have no historical training at all?

Please understand that I am not being rude. I want to understand how it is that you can believe that you know more about historical methods than do historians. How is that possible, Steve?

Let me remind you that have been discussing medical questions with Fisherman. He has no medical training at all. And still he thinks he knows more than you on some medical issues. So how come you want to put yourself in that sort of position?



It is not a matter of "monopoly". It is a matter of historical methods. And you have not studied historical methods. And Steve: historians do not "read" sources. We analyze them. So you do not even use historical methods.



It is utterly disturbing to hear this from you. I am truly sorry to hear it. Especially since you are the one who told us that now, indeed, you would show us the work based on "real science".



It is just words, Steve. There is no validity in it. "If", "could", and "would". Anyone can generate those words for anything. But you said you were going to use "real science"!



And there are sources for this "separate investigation" showing us exactly what?

And where are the sources?



Sources for it?



You wrote in # 86:



And since you mention Swanson and Thain I thought you meant the police.



One reason is that you have no research question, no analyze method and no systematic source criticism. Another reason is your language. It is not academic but you use words like "if" and "would". That is why I struggle, Steve.



Sources? What excerpts from those sources?



We will see.



Have you answered a question about that?



Mizen had interest in it since Cross contradicted him.



Mizen was not there and therefore he was not able to ask the question. That is just an historical fact.



No, you are wrong dear Steve. I do accept what you say. But I don´t know what your idea is, as you said, and as I said we will see.



So a more academic language would certainly help you.



Oh, dear. That is not a research question, Steve. You can not "gather a full acount of "all the events and people surrounding the murder in Bucks Row"". You can ONLY "gather articles and other sources and publish them on the forum".



You have published sources, which can be useful for people who want to "read" them or even analyze them.


But didn´t we all know that already? Honestly?



Yes, that is what one gets. A lot of ideas.



"There is no source to support this". Yes, there is. There are sources even. The inquest sources where Mizen is referred. Or have they vanished? Or are they hallucinations? Or have the post modern condition confused everyone so much that they think they can treat the sources as television series and data as data games?



What exactly do you mean by that?



OK. "No data". Cross otherwise Lechmere. Always Lechmere.



This question should have it´s own thread actually.

Pierre

It's late now. I will reply to this tomorrow Pierre.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;427634]

We disagree. That is not my interpretation of the report.
I have to remind you, not for the first time over the years that your view is just that your view.

And I have to remind you that you are trained within the field of medicine while I am trained within the field of history.

I would never presume to know more than you, or to make better interpretations, within that field. How come you believe that you are more capable of making historical interpretations than do historians, given that you in fact have no historical training at all?

Please understand that I am not being rude. I want to understand how it is that you can believe that you know more about historical methods than do historians. How is that possible, Steve?

Let me remind you that have been discussing medical questions with Fisherman. He has no medical training at all. And still he thinks he knows more than you on some medical issues. So how come you want to put yourself in that sort of position?

Having reread the report many times, I consider you intpretation to be incorrect. However
that is also my personal interpretation and just like you I may be wrong

The point is no one person has a monopoly on interpretation of a given source.

It is not a matter of "monopoly". It is a matter of historical methods. And you have not studied historical methods. And Steve: historians do not "read" sources. We analyze them. So you do not even use historical methods.

My dear Pierre, those words are part of the language used on this forum. We want this not to be a dry academic debate, there must be the use of such language. I am well aware that you consider such terms to be meaningless, and they can be. HOWEVER I do not believe such is true here.

It is utterly disturbing to hear this from you. I am truly sorry to hear it. Especially since you are the one who told us that now, indeed, you would show us the work based on "real science".

What does it mean you ask? It is very clear what I am saying.

It is just words, Steve. There is no validity in it. "If", "could", and "would". Anyone can generate those words for anything. But you said you were going to use "real science"!

However let me make it clear for you:
The police conducted a seperate investigation to the inquest. They did not rely on the inquest to supply them with information for their investigation, although of course to ignore any information supplied would be unwise.

And there are sources for this "separate investigation" showing us exactly what?

And where are the sources?

I postulated that they reached a conclusion on the so called scam, that was independent of and did not rely on anything Paul could have said.

Sources for it?

Not in regards to the Scam.
You appear to be confusing my comments on the Slaughter men with this. There is no relationship between the two series of events.

You wrote in # 86:

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.

And since you mention Swanson and Thain I thought you meant the police.

You really do seem to struggle with the various seperate issues I have been looking at, I am not sure why that is?

One reason is that you have no research question, no analyze method and no systematic source criticism. Another reason is your language. It is not academic but you use words like "if" and "would". That is why I struggle, Steve.

I postulated that when Both Mizen and Cross gave their evidence, there was no clear picture as to the truth to what was said on the Morning of 31st.

However the Police during their investigations came to a conclusion on this.

Sources? What excerpts from those sources?

This is my interpretation of the Police Reports, you don't agree, so be it.
The problem you have is you do not know what I have actually hypothesized, and therefore you cannot understand what I am suggesting and why.

We will see.

I could have said "did" he hear, rather than "if". It makes no difference my friend, the question is the same.

Have you answered a question about that?

Sorry how do you know no one had any interest in such a question? That is a personal view.

Mizen had interest in it since Cross contradicted him.

Mizen being there or not is irrelevant, if Baxter or the Jury had wanted to ask, his absence would not stop them.

Mizen was not there and therefore he was not able to ask the question. That is just an historical fact.

Wrong!
Nothing to do with loyalties and disloyalty, that was a phrased I used when talking about the slaughter men. It has no relevance to the issue of the Scam.
You suggest a theory you suspected I was working on, I told you then you were completely off target, it appears you do not accept what I say.

No, you are wrong dear Steve. I do accept what you say. But I don´t know what your idea is, as you said, and as I said we will see.

So let me be very clear. My use of loyalty and disloyalty has absolutely nothing to do with my view on Mizen and the so called Scam.

So a more academic language would certainly help you.

Yes they are but they are clear and can be of use in focusing ones thinking.

And I agree with you that the Theory that Lechmere was the killer, is very probably wrong.
However that is not what I set out to research, rather I aimed to gather a reasonably fullaccount of all the events and people surrounding the murder in Bucks Row.

Oh, dear. That is not a research question, Steve. You can not "gather a full acount of "all the events and people surrounding the murder in Bucks Row"". You can ONLY "gather articles and other sources and publish them on the forum".

That is what I have done.

You have published sources, which can be useful for people who want to "read" them or even analyze them.

The result of some of this research has led me to postulate that some of the arguments used to support the case for Lechmere are seriously flawed.

But didn´t we all know that already? Honestly?

The research has also allowed me to hypothesize about other issues on the Bucks Row murder, which are not directly related to the Murder, such as the Police Beats, the Slaughter men and the mortuary attendants.

Yes, that is what one gets. A lot of ideas.

You are entitled to that belief on Lechmere, we will disagree.
Did Lechmere see the killer?
There is no source to support this, but such cannot be ruled out.
Was this proposed Killer dressed as a policeman, there are no sources to back this view up.

"There is no source to support this". Yes, there is. There are sources even. The inquest sources where Mizen is referred. Or have they vanished? Or are they hallucinations? Or have the post modern condition confused everyone so much that they think they can treat the sources as television series and data as data games?

If Mizen says Paul was not involved in the conversation, that itself is contradicted by Lechmere,.

What exactly do you mean by that?

Did either have reason to lie ?
Yes arguments can be made for both to do so; however there is no data to help in what has been presented, only interpretations which cannot all be correct.

OK. "No data". Cross otherwise Lechmere. Always Lechmere.

Less extensive wounds?
That depends on degree. They are certainly far more extensive than was accepted for along time.
Was the killer disturbed? Very possabily, but it is not conclusive.

This question should have it´s own thread actually.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

Correction to post #124 -Comments on Spratling

Just noticed a mistake in the reports quoted below:


"Spratling states in Reports 6 & 14 he is not present when the body is stripped; however he is also reported as saying he saw 2 men stripping the body. (Reports: 10, 12, 14 & 15). The last reports are of course contrary to the reports of inspector Helson (Helson Table Reports :1-9, 12-15) "

2 additional reports erroneously crept into the comment that he saw 2 men stripping the body. Reports 14 & 15 DO NOT SAY THIS.

In addition one report needs to be add to the first comment.

The correct posting is :


"Spratling states in Reports: 4, 6 & 14 he is not present when the body is stripped; however he is also reported as saying he saw 2 men stripping the body. (Reports: 10 & 12). The last reports are of course contrary to the reports of inspector Helson (Helson Table Reports :1-9, 12-15) "


My humble apologies for those mistakes.

Steve

[Elamarna]

The external function of the source from the 19th is not the same as the external function(s) of the newspaper articles from the inquest.

The main content in the source from the 19th is about the life of the victim.

The beginning of the source is just a short presentation of the finding of her.

Therefore we can not expect this source to contain a detailed description for what was said at the inquest and what the police did, if anything, about the issues at that inquest.

We can not expect judicial discussions about testimonies/ problems with witnesses / problems with issues concearning their stories and so on and so forth.

It is a short historical descriptive report from the perspective of Swanson where he presented some dates and persons relevant to the case.

In this report the finders and the finding of the victim are just mentioned as a brief introduction.

It is not "airbrushed out", i.e. there was not strategy for removing evidence from the report. If there was, there must be traces of it. Are there any traces of it?

No. It is a plain simple description where the finding of the victim is a minor issue.

We disagree. That is not my interpretation of the report.
I have to remind you, not for the first time over the years that your view is just that your view.

Having reread the report many times, I consider you intpretation to be incorrect. However
that is also my personal interpretation and just like you I may be wrong

The point is no one person has a monopoly on interpretation of a given source.

Dear Steve, I see the word "if" and I see the word "probably". And I also see the "would not". What is all that supposed to mean?

My dear Pierre, those words are part of the language used on this forum. We want this not to be a dry academic debate, there must be the use of such language. I am well aware that you consider such terms to be meaningless, and they can be. HOWEVER I do not believe such is true here.

What does it mean you ask? It is very clear what I am saying. However let me make it clear for you:
The police conducted a seperate investigation to the inquest. They did not rely on the inquest to supply them with information for their investigation, although of course to ignore any information supplied would be unwise.

They can be what you call "in line" with it and still have no connection to it. I do not think I am misinterpreting what you said. You have postulated that the police did something which led to the testimony of Mizen not becoming an issue for discussion, have you not?

I postulated that they reached a conclusion on the so called scam, that was independent of and did not rely on anything Paul could have said.

And you spoke about loyalties and disloyalties and lies.

Not in regards to the Scam.
You appear to be confusing my comments on the Slaughter men with this. There is no relationship between the two series of events.

You really do seem to struggle with the various seperate issues I have been looking at, I am not sure why that is?

I have not postulated that the police lied or that they "airbrushed out" anything. There is no sources for it!

Let me compare to a case where I do think it is relevant to postulate that the authorities did airbrush out something. It is the Eddowes inquest, where Lawende was told by the coroner to not give his evidence to the court - unless the jury desired it.

That is an active airbrushing out, and there are sources for it.

We see nothing like this in the case of the Nichols inquest. On the contrary. Cross was allowed to give his evidence and the coroner did not stop it:

"A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row."

(http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_nichols.html)

I postulated that when Both Mizen and Cross gave their evidence, there was no clear picture as to the truth to what was said on the Morning of 31st. However the Police during their investigations came to a conclusion on this.
This is my interpretation of the Police Reports, you don't agree, so be it.
The problem you have is you do not know what I have actually hypothesized, and therefore you cannot understand what I am suggesting and why.

"IF"! Again.

I could have said "did" he hear, rather than "if". It makes no difference my friend, the question is the same.

And in the wrong context. He would not provoke a question "just because he heard" what was said. The questions were asked by the coroner and the jury.

And on the 17th they did not ask Paul about this, since no one had any interest in such a question. And Mizen himself was not there.

I am actually very tempted now to say that the police were very sloppy. They could have gotten more information from the inquest than they did. But such ideas just leads me to think that the police were not sloppy but corrupt. And for this there is no evidence in that particular case.

Sorry how do you know no one had any interest in such a question? That is a personal view.
Mizen being there or not is irrelevant, if Baxter or the Jury had wanted to ask, his absence would not stop them.

A conclusion based on loyalties and disloyalties and lies? No sources.

Wrong!
Nothing to do with loyalties and disloyalty, that was a phrased I used when talking about the slaughter men. It has no relevance to the issue of the Scam.
You suggest a theory you suspected I was working on, I told you then you were completely off target, it appears you do not accept what I say.

So let me be very clear. My use of loyalty and disloyalty has absolutely nothing to do with my view on Mizen and the so called Scam.

I don´t know. They are just hypotheses.

I don´t know if that is what I think. I don´t think I think anything about that right now. It is not important to me. But this silly story about the carman being the killer is important to me. Since it is wrong.

Yes they are but they are clear and can be of use in focusing ones thinking.

And I agree with you that the Theory that Lechmere was the killer, is very probably wrong.
However that is not what I set out to research, rather I aimed to gather a reasonably fullaccount of all the events and people surrounding the murder in Bucks Row.
That is what I have done. The result of some of this research has led me to postulate that some of the arguments used to support the case for Lechmere are seriously flawed.
The research has also allowed me to hypothesize about other issues on the Bucks Row murder, which are not directly related to the Murder, such as the Police Beats, the Slaughter men and the mortuary attendants.

I can tell you what I think. I think Cross lied. I think this because he gave half the truth about his name and the whole truth about his work and his own address. I also think this because the cuts on the abdomen were not extensive. So I think Cross saw the killer.

That was also one of the reasons for the choice of a less risky murder site on the 8th September.

You are entitled to that belief on Lechmere, we will disagree.
Did Lechmere see the killer?
There is no source to support this, but such cannot be ruled out.
Was this proposed Killer dressed as a policeman, there are no sources to back this view up.

Which reminds me of today´s date.

Yes and my mum's birthday too.

So all of it was between Cross and the killer. Obviously, there are sources for such an hypothesis. Cross did contradict Mizen. Paul gave a contradictory interview with tendencies. Mizen did not say he spoke to Paul. The cuts on the abdomen were less extensive than on Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. And so on and so forth.

But is was not between Cross and the police or Mizen and the police. Not without sources.

Pierre

If Mizen says Paul was not involved in the conversation, that itself is contradicted by Lechmere,.
Did either have reason to lie ?
Yes arguments can be made for both to do so; however there is no data to help in what has been presented, only interpretations which cannot all be correct.

Less extensive wounds?
That depends on degree. They are certainly far more extensive than was accepted for along time.
Was the killer disturbed? Very possabily, but it is not conclusive.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;427548]

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.

The external function of the source from the 19th is not the same as the external function(s) of the newspaper articles from the inquest.

The main content in the source from the 19th is about the life of the victim.

The beginning of the source is just a short presentation of the finding of her.

Therefore we can not expect this source to contain a detailed description for what was said at the inquest and what the police did, if anything, about the issues at that inquest.

We can not expect judicial discussions about testimonies/ problems with witnesses / problems with issues concearning their stories and so on and so forth.

It is a short historical descriptive report from the perspective of Swanson where he presented some dates and persons relevant to the case.

In this report the finders and the finding of the victim are just mentioned as a brief introduction.

It is not "airbrushed out", i.e. there was not strategy for removing evidence from the report. If there was, there must be traces of it. Are there any traces of it?

No. It is a plain simple description where the finding of the victim is a minor issue.

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.

Dear Steve, I see the word "if" and I see the word "probably". And I also see the "would not". What is all that supposed to mean?

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.

They can be what you call "in line" with it and still have no connection to it. I do not think I am misinterpreting what you said. You have postulated that the police did something which led to the testimony of Mizen not becoming an issue for discussion, have you not?

And you spoke about loyalties and disloyalties and lies.

I have not postulated that the police lied or that they "airbrushed out" anything. There is no sources for it!

Let me compare to a case where I do think it is relevant to postulate that the authorities did airbrush out something. It is the Eddowes inquest, where Lawende was told by the coroner to not give his evidence to the court - unless the jury desired it.

That is an active airbrushing out, and there are sources for it.

We see nothing like this in the case of the Nichols inquest. On the contrary. Cross was allowed to give his evidence and the coroner did not stop it:

"A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row."

(http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_nichols.html)

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?

"IF"! Again.

And in the wrong context. He would not provoke a question "just because he heard" what was said. The questions were asked by the coroner and the jury.

And on the 17th they did not ask Paul about this, since no one had any interest in such a question. And Mizen himself was not there.

I am actually very tempted now to say that the police were very sloppy. They could have gotten more information from the inquest than they did. But such ideas just leads me to think that the police were not sloppy but corrupt. And for this there is no evidence in that particular case.

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.

A conclusion based on loyalties and disloyalties and lies? No sources.

Your points four and five are equally valid and are useful as I write up.

I don´t know. They are just hypotheses.

I believe the Police wanted the story to go away, as do you I think,

I don´t know if that is what I think. I don´t think I think anything about that right now. It is not important to me. But this silly story about the carman being the killer is important to me. Since it is wrong.

just for different reasons to those I happen to think apply

I can tell you what I think. I think Cross lied. I think this because he gave half the truth about his name and the whole truth about his work and his own address. I also think this because the cuts on the abdomen were not extensive. So I think Cross saw the killer.

That was also one of the reasons for the choice of a less risky murder site on the 8th September.

Which reminds me of today´s date.

So all of it was between Cross and the killer. Obviously, there are sources for such an hypothesis. Cross did contradict Mizen. Paul gave a contradictory interview with tendencies. Mizen did not say he spoke to Paul. The cuts on the abdomen were less extensive than on Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. And so on and so forth.

But is was not between Cross and the police or Mizen and the police. Not without sources.

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 Buck´s 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 Buck´s Row", this is what you mean.

So - Why was Paul not asked "Did Cross tell Mizen that there was a policeman in Buck´s 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

[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, don´t 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.

Don´t 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 don´t - 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. Let´s 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 Buck´s 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 Buck´s Row", this is what you mean.

So - Why was Paul not asked "Did Cross tell Mizen that there was a policeman in Buck´s 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]

[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;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]

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;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]

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

[Elamarna]

Bucks Row Project part 2 post 19a - Press