The Bucks Row Project part 2

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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]

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;425170]

Time to look at Dr Llewellyn.

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

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

In his early press statement (Reports: 1-4) he says he was called to Bucks Row at about 3.55 by PC Thain.

The first question this raises is was that the time Thain knocked, or the time Llewellyn arrive? It can be read either way, fortunately in all 4 reports he goes on to say:

“I went to the place at once”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

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

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


Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

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

Regards,

Gary

Hi Gary,

there certainly are some variations

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

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


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

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

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

[MrBarnett]

Hi Steve,

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

Regards,

Gary

[Elamarna]

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

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

Hi,

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

Steve

[Elamarna]

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

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


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

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

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