Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Bucks Row Project part 2

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Bucks Row Project part 2

    This is just an update.

    I had planned to start posting part 2 next Monday however cricket watching commitments at Lords mean this will be delayed until probably Thursday.
    Part 2 is lengthy and so will not all be posted at the same time. At the moment it will probably be 3 separate groups of postings over a 5-7 day period.

    Steve

  • #2
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
    This is just an update.

    I had planned to start posting part 2 next Monday however cricket watching commitments at Lords mean this will be delayed until probably Thursday.
    Part 2 is lengthy and so will not all be posted at the same time. At the moment it will probably be 3 separate groups of postings over a 5-7 day period.

    Steve
    I appreciate someone who has the honesty to state exactly what his priorities are.

    I wonder which South Africa will turn up?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by barnflatwyngarde View Post
      I appreciate someone who has the honesty to state exactly what his priorities are.

      I wonder which South Africa will turn up?
      From my point of view, which England.

      Actually it's county 4 day cricket. Middlesex.

      Steve

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
        This is just an update.

        I had planned to start posting part 2 next Monday however cricket watching commitments at Lords mean this will be delayed until probably Thursday.
        Part 2 is lengthy and so will not all be posted at the same time. At the moment it will probably be 3 separate groups of postings over a 5-7 day period.

        Steve
        Thanks for the update Steve.

        Cheers, Pierre

        Comment


        • #5
          Bucks Row Project - Part 2 :
          The Sources-
          Witness Statements, Police Reports
          and Press Reports
          .


          So we are finally at Part 2 of the Bucks Row Project, or nearly there.
          It has taken longer than I expected due to issues over how to present this section.
          Like the first part this will be fairly dry so to speak, It will contain most of the sources directly relating to the events in Bucks Row on the morning of 31st August 1888. Again much like part 1 it should be viewed as an appendix to the upcoming Part 3 and a research tool to allow me to asses others views on some issues, and for others to easily search for quotes and information.

          The sources are basically made up of:

          a. Official police reports of which there are several. I consider these to be the most reliable sources which we have relating to the events.

          b. Press reports of the inquest, the original transcript having apparently not survived.

          c. Press interviews with individuals, or statements given by individuals to the press, these are of varying reliability.

          d. General press reports of events.

          While this is not an exhaustive list of sources, it does include many which will be useful for anyone researching the matter in the future, who wishes to see the basic sources, in one easily accessible place.

          This information is present over the following pages as a series of tables, one for every named individual in the case. Each table lists a number of different sources. Each separate source is given a reference to allow for easier discussion.

          There are however several exceptions to the one table per individual approach, Official police reports are on a table of their own, excluding Spratlings of the 1st which is on the Spratling table.

          Some witnesses such as Holland and Walker share one table, as do the workers from the Slaughter house.

          The tables include all 3 of the first 4 types of source listed above, however sources are identified by use of (A), (B) or (C), directly after the date of each source, which equate to above to allow easy reference.

          The fourth type D- General press reports have there own table.

          A few comments should be made about the press reports of the inquest, it is known that agency reports were used at times, or papers basically used the copy from others.

          David Orsam some time back posted an interesting thread on the coverage of the Nichols inquest,

          Thread: “Inquest Reports of Mizen/Cross Evidence”
          http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8492

          While this was not universally agreed upon, it still makes a useful background the subject of press reporting of inquests in the Late Victorian Period.

          Each table will have some basic interpretation and analysis, but much like part 1 it is meant as a precursor to part 3. However few comments are made on the general press reports.

          Each table stands on its own so it should be easy for posters to comment freely on each table. And that is to a great degree the aim of this work, to get feedback from others on issues.

          Of course we don’t need the types of replies for normal threads where arguments go back and forth incessantly, clearly disagreeing with something will do, with either reference to other threads or concise reasons.
          I may respond to some small degree but again the main debate will be in part 3 when I carry out full analysis and present some theories, at that point, gloves off, helmets on and argue as much as you want then.

          Again I would like to pay thanks to those who’s work as made much of this possible. They have not all agreed with all or anything have posted, but without their input this work would not be possible,
          There are many but in particular Fisherman, David Orsam, Joshua Rogan, Dusty Miller, Patrick S, Frank0, Simon Wood, Jerry Dunlop, Monty, Kjab3112, RichardH and Pierre.

          And Evans and Skinner for the Ultimate Source Book, where would we be without it.

          And for any mapping once again I use :

          http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom...layers=163&b=1




          Steve Blomer (Elamarna) 09/08/17

          Comment


          • #6
            Bucks Row Project part 2 post 2

            [ATTACH]18172[/ATTACH]

            [ATTACH]18173[/ATTACH]

            [ATTACH]18174[/ATTACH]

            [ATTACH]18175[/ATTACH]

            [ATTACH]18176[/ATTACH]


            Above are a selection of the reports of the inquest statements made by Charles Cross/Lechmere.

            As in these reports he is referred to as Cross, for this section alone I will refer to him by that name alone.

            There are several points that need to be seen.

            Firstly most of them appear to be based on a few common reports rather than each on individual reports, the similarity is very striking in some case.
            Some contain more evidence than others, this may indicate that a reporter was present from that particular paper, or that the report has been less heavily edited by the publishing paper..

            Secondly there is no common consensus on the time he said he left home:

            5 say “at 3.30” ( Reports 1,2, 4, 6, 9)
            5 say “about 3.30” (reports 3, 5, 6, 7, 12)
            2 say he left “at 3..20”. (reports 10, 11)

            The two stating 3.20 also give an arrival time of 4am at Pickfords as does the Echo which states he left home at about 3.30. this may be either a mistake by those two reports #10 and 11 above, the Times and the Star, or it could be that this was the time he normally left home, and such was not included by the other papers.

            All the reports say he crossed to the middle of to look at the object he saw. Given this was on the Southern side the reports therefore appear to agree he was walking on the Northern side of the road,

            The comments on Paul’s opinion at the murder site differ between “she is dead” and “not sure”. 8 in favour of some possible little movement (Reports 3,4,5,7,8,10,11,12 ); 4 that she was dead (Reports 1,2,6,9 ). This suggestes that Paul may have been unsure at first, but seemed to think he felt some movement later on, but was not 100% certain.

            8 of the 12 reports, (1,2,5,6,7,9,10,12 ) mention that Paul tried to pull the clothes down but could not, this implies that the clothing was somehow restrained, maybe by being pulled up at the back and held in place by Nichols weight.

            2 of the 12 (4and 8) make the claim that they heard a policeman approaching but left!
            The same two papers however also claim that it was Paul who refused to touch the body, not Neil, this strongly suggests a common source
            Both points appear to be at odds with all other reports, but will be looked at in more detail in part 3,

            In all of the reports Cross says he told Mizen that a woman was lying in Bucks Row, either dead or drunk

            In 2 Reports Cross specifiably says he believes Nichols to be dead, as a follow up to dead or drunk( 4,8) and in 5 Reports he says Paul said she was dead( 3,5,7,10,11).

            He denies in all reports saying that Mizen was needed by another constable.

            In report 10 he agrees with Paul that Mizen continued to knock up and suggests to to this he did not walk towards Bucks Row, however he does not say where he actually knocked up. In reports 4 & 8 he just says the policeman walked on with no other details.

            It is unclear exactly where they met Mizen, the Evening Post(report 12) being the only one to suggest a location, “ met a constable coming out of Montague-street”, this is corroborated by Paul in his statements, reports 3 & 8 of his own tables.

            One point is where did Paul and Cross part company, some reports imply that they may have gone separate ways after Mizen, but are not specific, others say they parted “soon after”, only the times(11) gives a full answer which is

            “ The other man left witness at the corner of Hanbury street and turned into Corbett's court.”

            This makes sense as that was Paul’s place of work and also on a direct route for Cross. However to say they parted soon after is incorrect the distance is approx 807yrd so would take 6-8 minutes

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
              Bucks Row Project - Part 2 :
              The Sources-
              Witness Statements, Police Reports
              and Press Reports
              .


              So we are finally at Part 2 of the Bucks Row Project, or nearly there.
              It has taken longer than I expected due to issues over how to present this section.
              Like the first part this will be fairly dry so to speak, It will contain most of the sources directly relating to the events in Bucks Row on the morning of 31st August 1888. Again much like part 1 it should be viewed as an appendix to the upcoming Part 3 and a research tool to allow me to asses others views on some issues, and for others to easily search for quotes and information.

              The sources are basically made up of:

              a. Official police reports of which there are several. I consider these to be the most reliable sources which we have relating to the events.

              b. Press reports of the inquest, the original transcript having apparently not survived.

              c. Press interviews with individuals, or statements given by individuals to the press, these are of varying reliability.

              d. General press reports of events.

              While this is not an exhaustive list of sources, it does include many which will be useful for anyone researching the matter in the future, who wishes to see the basic sources, in one easily accessible place.

              This information is present over the following pages as a series of tables, one for every named individual in the case. Each table lists a number of different sources. Each separate source is given a reference to allow for easier discussion.

              There are however several exceptions to the one table per individual approach, Official police reports are on a table of their own, excluding Spratlings of the 1st which is on the Spratling table.

              Some witnesses such as Holland and Walker share one table, as do the workers from the Slaughter house.

              The tables include all 3 of the first 4 types of source listed above, however sources are identified by use of (A), (B) or (C), directly after the date of each source, which equate to above to allow easy reference.

              The fourth type D- General press reports have there own table.

              A few comments should be made about the press reports of the inquest, it is known that agency reports were used at times, or papers basically used the copy from others.

              David Orsam some time back posted an interesting thread on the coverage of the Nichols inquest,

              Thread: “Inquest Reports of Mizen/Cross Evidence”
              http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8492

              While this was not universally agreed upon, it still makes a useful background the subject of press reporting of inquests in the Late Victorian Period.

              Each table will have some basic interpretation and analysis, but much like part 1 it is meant as a precursor to part 3. However few comments are made on the general press reports.

              Each table stands on its own so it should be easy for posters to comment freely on each table. And that is to a great degree the aim of this work, to get feedback from others on issues.

              Of course we don’t need the types of replies for normal threads where arguments go back and forth incessantly, clearly disagreeing with something will do, with either reference to other threads or concise reasons.
              I may respond to some small degree but again the main debate will be in part 3 when I carry out full analysis and present some theories, at that point, gloves off, helmets on and argue as much as you want then.

              Again I would like to pay thanks to those who’s work as made much of this possible. They have not all agreed with all or anything have posted, but without their input this work would not be possible,
              There are many but in particular Fisherman, David Orsam, Joshua Rogan, Dusty Miller, Patrick S, Frank0, Simon Wood, Jerry Dunlop, Monty, Kjab3112, RichardH and Pierre.

              And Evans and Skinner for the Ultimate Source Book, where would we be without it.

              And for any mapping once again I use :

              http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom...layers=163&b=1

              Steve Blomer (Elamarna) 09/08/17
              Steve,

              Congratulations on good work. This will be very interesting.

              Pierre

              Comment


              • #8
                Bucks Row Project part 2 post 3

                Click image for larger version

Name:	1a_copy.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	215.3 KB
ID:	667053

                Click image for larger version

Name:	2a_copy.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	230.1 KB
ID:	667054

                Click image for larger version

Name:	3a_copy.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	81.5 KB
ID:	667055

                Here we have two different types of source, both are newspaper reports, however they are of a distinctly different type reports 3 – 11 are the standard inquest reports, reports 1 & 2 are interviews with Robert Paul, these need to be assessed differently from the inquest reports. We need to see if there is any overriding view or feeling expressed in the interview, a tendency.

                There are two tendencies obvious from reports 1 & 2:

                Firstly that Paul takes centre stage in all the actions following meeting Lechmere, he wants to appear the man in control, this may even extend to his very exact comments on timings.

                Secondly there is an hostility which runs throughout his interview towards the police, from the comments about the area had not been checked recently, to his open disdain towards PC Mizen.
                This may be because of a deep seated dislike of the Police in general or maybe just a dislike for Mizen, which spilled over as an attack on the Police in general, it is not possible to say which.

                Taking both of those points into account, it seems clear that these reports are not reliable, however we should not just reject them outright, we should see if they can be corroborated by any other sources, in this case either Lechmere or Mizen, in which case they may still provide valuable data on the chronology of the events,

                Paul claims he was in Bucks Row at exactly 3.45, he gives no explanation of why he is sure of this, and why should he? But it does remain an exact time which is odd, others have claimed he may have heard a clock strike, however such is not reported by others close by in particularly Lechmere and Thain and Neil, nor by Mulshaw.

                The important issue over the 3.45 timing is that this is in complete contradiction to the sworn Statements of no less than 3 Police Officers, his view is not corroborated at all in this instance, and should therefore be treated with great caution

                He gives an impression of a dangerous place to be, maybe trying to suggest he is a brave man.

                He clearly says says Nichols is dead when he examines her, this is somewhat contrary to his inquest testimony, but is more in keeping with that of Lechmere on the exchange.
                It may well be that having learnt she was indeed dead before giving his interview he pushed the dead suggestion to again make himself look in control.

                Again we see him creating an impression of he is in control, he left on his own, he does all the talking to Mizen, who ignores him.

                Very little mention of Lechmere, who is a bit player. Overall it shows an attempt to place himself as centre of attention.

                However there are some useful points, that he speaks to Mizen is corroborated by Lechmere, however it is in a minor role, just apparently chipping in that the woman is dead.
                Mizen of course does not mention this, but such should n ot be seen as a denial that Paul never spoke, just that Mizen did not notice it, or bother to report on it.

                However Mizen does corroborate Paul’s comments about continuing to knock up to a degree , he says he did one more, or finished the one he had been about to start when approached by the Carmen. Lechmere in his turn says much the same in the Star 3rd September, that Mizen did at least one more knock up. (Report # 10 Cross Table)
                Of course Paul goes much further, implying that Mizen ignored what he was told and carried on knocking up full stop.


                It needs to be noted that the name "church row" is used for where Paul and Lechmere meet Mizen, it has been suggested that this may have been an older name for the area, however it is not clear if the name is from Paul of the journalist, the same is actually true for much of this report, is it Paul pushing himself or the journalist leading him in that direction.


                The Inquest reports give a somewhat different viewpoint :

                On the issue of the time he arrives in Bucks Row he now says in reports 3 and 11 “about 3.45”. report 4 says “at” and Reports 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 “just before”. Report 8 makes no comment at all. The very precise mention of exactly 3.45 in Bucks Row is now gone.

                On Nichols condition, his view has also changed from report 1& 2

                Believed was dead could not hear breathing, but maybe slight movement breathing detected by feel. Hands and face cold ( reports: 3 8 10).

                Appeared dead, hands and arms cold (report : 4).

                Hands and face cold no mention of if dead or not (reports: 5 & 6).

                Faint breathing and body partly warm (7 & 9).

                All of which is far more circumspect and indeed contrary to reports 1 & 2

                only report 11 says she was dead and nothing more.

                Does this mean that Paul was sure about the condition of Nichols, I feel not 100% we shall look at it again in part 3.



                With regards to Lechmere and their departure to find the police there is also a difference from reports 1 & 2, which implies that Paul went on his own..

                Reports 3 & 8 says they left together and meet Mizen on the corner of Old Montague Street there is another report which (report 12 from cross table) which suggested where they actually meet, such needs to be noted as it gives us a possibly more precise location than anything else and may be of use in reassessing certain issues in part 3.

                Reports 9 & 11 say that Paul and Lechmere went together, while report 7 suggest together

                There is no comment from reports 4 & 10

                At odds with all the above, including reports 1 & 2 are reports 5 & 6 which claim Paul sent Lechmere to find a Police officer, however it is clear hat these 2 reports have a common source and so it is probable it is a simple case of misreporting.

                In no inquest report is there any mention that she must have been dead some time, nor any comments about Mizen, there seems to be a wish to disassociate himself as far as possible from reports 1 and 2 completely.

                We will look at this again briefly in part 3

                Comment


                • #9
                  Well Done!

                  Couple of very minor corrections,

                  "The same two papers however also claim that it was Paul who refused to touch the body, not Neil, this strongly suggests a common source"

                  I'm assuming you meant Cross, not Neil;-)

                  And with Paul's Lloyds interview,we have to consider the possibilty that the beefing up of Paul's role my be attributed to the reporter. The article doesn't read like natural conversation or story telling.

                  But all in all, great work.
                  dustymiller
                  aka drstrange


                  "Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."
                  Fisherman

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                    Well Done!

                    Couple of very minor corrections,

                    "The same two papers however also claim that it was Paul who refused to touch the body, not Neil, this strongly suggests a common source"

                    I'm assuming you meant Cross, not Neil;-)

                    And with Paul's Lloyds interview,we have to consider the possibilty that the beefing up of Paul's role my be attributed to the reporter. The article doesn't read like natural conversation or story telling.

                    But all in all, great work.
                    Thanks for the correction.

                    Yes Lechmere/Cross not Neil.

                    Proof reading letting me down.

                    2nd point very true, I was going to raise this in part 3 but it's good to have it highlighted now.

                    More to follow in next few hours.


                    Again thanks


                    Steve

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Bucks Row Project part 2 post 4 -Neil

                      [ATTACH]18182[/ATTACH]

                      [ATTACH]18183[/ATTACH]

                      [ATTACH]18184[/ATTACH]

                      [ATTACH]18185[/ATTACH]

                      [ATTACH]18186[/ATTACH]

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Bucks Row Project part 2 post 4a -Neil

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	6_copy.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	223.6 KB
ID:	667063

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	7_copy.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	211.6 KB
ID:	667064

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	8_copy.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	41.7 KB
ID:	667065


                        Time to look at the reports of PC Neil’s , testimony.


                        The first thing to say is that the press reports from the 31st and 3rd which claim blood flowing profusely are not included in this particular chart. There is nothing to suggest the comments are quotes, let alone the interview claimed by some. Indeed in some of the reports actual quotes are given, or attributions made to other witnesses, but none are to Neil, it can therefore be argued that these reports are not the views of PC Neil. They are to be found in the press chart.


                        Neil says he arrives at 3.45 in reports 1,2,8 & 10. In reports 1,2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 & 12, all say about half hour before he found the body.,

                        In addition he claims to have been at the slaughter house in Winthrop Street approx 30 minutes before, some reports “about 3.15” (,3,4,5,6,11 & 12 ), some “3.15” (7) or “ about 3.20” (8, 9 & 10).

                        Obviously if the beat took exactly 30 minutes and he was in Bucks Row 30 minutes before has he says he could not have been also at slaughter house at same time; however he does say “about” so we can allow say 5minutes variation.
                        We will look at this in greater detail in part 3 to see just how possible it was to be at the slaughter house some 25-30 minutes before Neil found the body.
                        Hopefully this will allow us to asses if the suggested beat is correct.

                        Related is where Neil was when he saw the body, the Northern or Southern side of Bucks Row, some have argued that this may indicate which side of Bucks Row he entered from, North or South, again something I will discuss in depth in part 3.

                        The inquest reports while initially seeming clear on this are actually rather confusing on the issue,

                        The earliest surviving reports (1 & 2) gives no indication of the side Neil is on, but says the body was on the right hand side of the road
                        Report 2 Lloyds says Neil is on the left hand side(North) of the street and “he went across” to the body, this implies he crosses the road.

                        However now we have issues, reports 4, 5,6,7,11 & 12 all say he was on the right hand side(South) of the street, but all also say “I went across” , although report 7 gives it in the 3rd person “he”. This again implies crossing over and there seems to be an anomaly here

                        Reports 8,9 &10 make no comment on his positioning at all.

                        An interesting issue is that in report 1 it states “it was on the right hand side of Bucks Row” whilst the others which mention aside say “I was on the right hand side of the street” report 2 says on the “right hand side of the road”


                        One other point of interest is some information in a post by David Orsam relating to the origins of many of the reports of the inquest for the 1st September:


                        “The key to identifying the different reporters in court on that day may be in the address of Edward Walker.

                        According to Lloyds/Morning Advertiser/Standard etc. he lived at "15, Maidwell-street, Albany-road, Camberwell".

                        According to the Evening Post reporter, however, he lived in "Maiden-street, Albany-road, Camberwell", no door number being provided.

                        The Times has his address as being "16 Maidswood-road, Camberwell" from which I think we can conclude that the Times had a separate reporter at the inquest and that there were at least three reporters in the courtroom that day.

                        I note that the Echo - assuming it's been transcribed correctly - has Walker living at "16, Madswood-street, Albany-road, Camberwell" which is a bit similar to the Times but might indicate the presence of a fourth reporter.”



                        This is obviously a very intriguing question and will be looked at very carefully later in part 3.


                        We will need to see also how his timing of 3.45 fits with other witnesses, notably Paul, but also Thain and Mizen, and while it will not be possible to be exact we may at that point be able to asses if any of the 4 is likely to be incorrect.


                        His description of finding the body is also of interest, he says he saw blood only with aid of a lamp, which suggest Lechmere and Paul were unlikely to have noticed it, unless they touched Nichols neck area or touched the pool. He also claims it is oozing at this stage in all ten reports.

                        However at a later stage he uses the word running, to describe to flow from her neck to the pool, Reports 3,4,5,6,11 &12. Reports 1,2,7,8,9 &10 make no mention of the word “running”


                        It is suggested that this is a contradiction in Neil’s testimony, however such can easily be explained away as “oozing” referring to the actual blood flow from the wound, while “running” is a way of showing where the blood was coming from. Such is often used in English such as the road runs from point A to point B or the leak was running across the floor from the radiator, it does not denote speed of flow.

                        He also noted that her arms were warm from elbow up, suggesting that while death had occurred recently he may not have been immediately before he arrived.

                        He clearly says he heard, not saw Thain passing by the Eastern End of Bucks Row in Brady street and signalled to him, and subsequently sent him to get Dr Llewellyn in 10 out of the 12reports .

                        Report 2 is an oddity in that it mentions only one other officer, not two and while it says Neil heard this officer it then says he sent him to get the ambulance it looks as if there is some confusion on merging of the details at this point.

                        After this and before the Doctor arrives he see Mizen in Bakers Row, some reports say passing along Bakers Row (1,8,9 &10)

                        One assumes he signalled to Mizen by lamp, such is supported by reports in the Times and Echo 3rd September (7a and 8a), which appear to be direct quotes or interview with Neil, that he signalled to and was responded to by both Thain and Mizen,
                        One small issue we will need to look at in part 3 is could Neil actually see any of the junction of Whites Row/Bakers Row from his position in Bucks Row, we can see from the reports that he did move across to the Northern side of the street to knock at Essex Wharf, but the exact timing of this is unclear.

                        It is interesting that some claim this report, particularly the Echo, proves that on Sunday 2nd Neil was still claiming to be the finder, it does not, as it gives no indication of the time of the comments.

                        We see the story of the 12 minute beat starting here, however there is no source for this assertion which is counted by the Echo report 21st September. (The beat is something I will look at in depth in part 3).

                        In addition we have the odd comments that neither Thain or Mizen noticed anyone to attract attention; very odd given that in his sworn testimony Thain says he saw two men walking down Brady street and Mizen appears to be denying meeting the carmen.

                        This report need to be read with great care and caution, it may not be reliable.

                        What is of interest is Neil’s report that two slaughter men arrived at the scene first (reports 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 &12) does he mean before Thain, Mizen or the arrival of Llewellyn? Or does he mean the first members of the public?
                        When one looks at Mizen’s statements that Neil was alone, we can I think assume that he means after he sent the two police officers to get assistance.
                        Reports 2 & 8 say that they arrive as body is about to go on ambulance and were first general pubic to arrive apart from man who passed unknown.
                        Report 2 is initially confusing it says the two from the slaughter house were the first arrive on the scene, yet earlier in the report says two men are there before, however it qualifies this by stating this was as the result of being knocked by the police, could these two therefore be Mr Purkiss and Mrs Greens son - James?

                        Reports 2, 9 & 10 say Llewellyn came in about 10 minutes after he sent Thain, others are less precise and say short time.

                        When looking at the above in Part 3 we will need to see how it fits in with the testimony of the carmen, Mizen, and Thain before we can reach any firm conclusions.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Bucks Row Project part 2 post 5 -Mizen

                          Click image for larger version

Name:	1a_copy.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	208.0 KB
ID:	667066

                          Click image for larger version

Name:	2a_copy.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	127.6 KB
ID:	667067

                          When looking at the reports of PC Mizen, there are many things to consider, his meeting with the Carmen and the “Mizen Scam” and his reporting of seeing blood back at the murder site.

                          The first issue is the odd mistake about the time events occurred.
                          In 7 of the 12 reports he claims to meet the Carmen at either 3.45 (3 reports: 1, 7, 12 ) or “about 3.45 (4 reports: 2,4, 6,10 ) in the remaining 5 reports, 3 for some reason give 4.20 (3, 5,8) while 2 give 4.15 (9,11)

                          Obviously there was a major misunderstanding here with several reporters, it is of course reasonable that a quarter to four may have become garbled as a quarter past, but that does not account for the reports of 4.20am

                          According to Mizen only one Carman spoke to him, although he says both were indeed there, this testimony is contrary to both of the carmen and is part of a major issue in what has been termed the “Mizen Scam.”

                          The issue is what was said to him,

                          Of 12 reports, 7 say he was told he was just wanted, 5 however say by another policeman.
                          One should assume that the non mention of this by 7 reports is just an oversight, and it is implied.
                          However this is contrary to the statements of Lechmere and Paul.

                          He admits that he did continue knocking up after he was spoken to, but says he only finished the knock up he was on, 2 or 3 knocks. This can be seen as either honesty or an attempt to cover up realising a complete denial would be pointless. However there is no way of knowing.

                          Mizen says he went straight to Bucks Row and found Neil shining his light on pavement, no mention of seeing him from Bakers Row, only when gets to site.

                          All of this will be discussed in much greater depth in part 3


                          The reports suggest that on arrival he went for an ambulance, and on returning with it assisted removing body and his description of bleeding from the neck is from this period ( reports: 1, 4, 5, 7)
                          Only one report is unclear and may be interpreted as being from before the ambulance, however this report contains no details about assisting in removing the body and it may be that as been excised by the editor of the report (3)
                          Report 6 is the only other report to discuss loading onto ambulance and there is no mention at all of Mizen seeing any blood at all at any time, and so is of no value in the debate as to when he sees blood.

                          Again as with Neil the use of “running” can be seen as direction description rather than speed of flow.

                          However the issue here is does he make this report after he gets the ambulance and assists loading body, or before.
                          If the former we are talking about a period of over a minimum of 16 minutes after he first arrives at the body as discussed in The Bucks Row Project part 1 post 8, such does not really fit with the blood flow theory and we shall discuss this in detail in part 3.

                          However if his report is from the time of his arrive, which while not backed by the sources, is not impossible, we have a period ranging from about 9minutes 35 seconds up to 14 minutes as in The Bucks Row Project part 1 post 9, again this is outside of the suggested range of the Blood Flow Theory


                          Is there a tendency in his testimony?

                          Yes in that he says went at once and straight to Neil, does not mention he was signalled to by Neil.
                          He attempts to portray himself as fully conforming to his duty.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Bucks Row Project part 2 post 6 -Thain

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	1a_copy.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	187.2 KB
ID:	667068

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	2a_copy.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	172.9 KB
ID:	667069

                            An important issue when looking at Thain is his Timings, to do this the first thing we need to look at is the beat of Thain. It is covered in the Echo report of the 21st September.

                            “The fourth constable would commence at Baker's row, go through Nottingham street, White
                            street, Bethnal Green road, Mape street, London street, to Baker's row, and all the interior, consisting of about thirty streets, courts, passages, &c.”


                            This was a very long beat,

                            The external walking distance is approximately 1470 yards, the internal is over 1800 yards giving a total of over 3250 yards, far greater than the beat of Neil.

                            If he covered the whole beat at 3mph it would take approx 37 minutes and if he walked at 2.5 mph it is a staggering 45 minutes. Indeed if he walked at a constant 3mph the greatest distance he could cover in 30 minutes is 2640 yards and if at at 2.5 we have maximum distance of 2190yards.

                            ( feedback from part 1 has allowed me to reassess the likely walking speed of constables and I shall be making some changes in part 3 based on that, however for now I will continue to use both 2.5 and 3mph).


                            In the inquest reports when talking about the beat : he says “30 minutes”, ( Reports 2,4,5,6,7 ) or “about 30 minutes” ( Reports: 1,3,8 & 9 ).

                            It therefore seems clear that he did not do all the beat every circuit if his statement of 30 minutes is to be accepted, Not exactly half hour beat but close. However he passed at 3.15 and 3.45, report 7 seems to confirm this

                            It seems that he passed the end of bucks row close to 3.45

                            Reports : 1,3,7 & 8 say “about”, Reports : 2,3,4,5 & 9 give “at 3.45” or “a quarter to 4” and Report 6 makes no comment


                            He was signalled to by Neil and he responded and went to get the doctor.
                            When he arrived at Neil , he was alone reports: 1 & 7.


                            His next comments are of particular interest he says that on his return he saw 2 workmen standing with Neil, and he did not know them ( reports:2 & 7), this appears to be at odds with Neil’s statements that the first public to arrive were from the slaughter house. Is Thain saying these were not them or just that he did not know them personally, if the former and Neil is correct how then did they come to be here if Thain had not in fact already told them.
                            Or are the two men he sees with Neil, Purkiss and Green as speculated in part 2 post 4.

                            He says in reports 2,7 & 9 that he went to get his cape from the slaughter house, in reports 2 & 7 he says he had not left it there, but another constable had, there is no mention of whom, but one should assume Neil as it was on his beat. There is no mention of why, it was not raining, so could not have got wet.
                            In report 7 it is reported he did not go to the slaughter house first before the Doctor, in report 2 the wording is slightly different saying he did not say he was going for a doctor? Is this significant or just the wording being less than precise?
                            This is covered in a thread by David Orsam “PC Thain’s Cape which is worth reading. I shall analysis this more in part 3

                            We now need to asses his comments about the amount of blood

                            Report 1 large quantity on pavement, and back appeared saturated as far as waist.
                            Reports 4 & 5 large clot near wall running into gutter, back appeared saturated as far as waist.
                            Report 6 much blood against gate, dress soaked with blood.
                            Report 7 when body moved large area of congealed blood about 6 inches seen, some running towards gutter, dress covered as far as waist, also blood in area of legs.
                            Report 9 large quantity of blood in gutter which had run from pavement, clothing saturated with blood which appear to have run from back.

                            Some interesting points here, Thain uses the term running to describe the blood moving from the pavement into the gutter, he obviously does not mean it is flowing under pressure, and is therefore similar to the use of the word by Neil and Mizen, he also uses it to describe the flow of blood in Nichols clothing.

                            From the above we can see that there was blood in a large quantity present both on the pavement and in her clothing, in addition he says there was blood under her, but more importantly that much had gone from the pavement into the gutter, was this clear before the body was moved, and how far had it run. The extent is not recorded and Thain was involved with washing it away with Green and so probably had the best view of all the police there.

                            He also searched the street but found no additional blood, as in going to or from the body, reports 4,5 & 7.

                            Additionally he also reported just before he saw Neil he saw two men going towards Whitechapel road, so the area not as deserted as many imply reports 2 & 7.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              update

                              That is all for today, the next parts will be posted Saturday or Sunday.



                              steve

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X