Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Elamarna]

Check it out, guys.

PC Neil could not have had line of sight to PC Mizen's Bullseye lamp.

And vice-versa.

The idea is BS.

Sorry Simon
The maps and the geometry say he could. You may not like it, but physical science says very different to your view.

Hope you are well btw.


Steve

[DJA]

Check it out, guys.

PC Neil could not have had line of sight to PC Mizen's Bullseye lamp.

And vice-versa.

The idea is BS.

Never the Thain shall meet

[Fisherman]

You don’t seem to get my stance, Christer. I'm not saying that Neil saw Mizen when he was in Baker’s Row. I'm saying he could have seen him walking on the footway just west of upper Thomas Street. Not much gliding scale there from a position close to Essex Wharf.

Okay, so you do not agree with Steve that Neil would actually have seen Mizen up at Bakers Row? And you do agree that Mizen was on his way to the body when Neil DID see him? Steves version of the truth seems to be that Mizen never intended to go to Bucks Row and only did so on account of Neil signalling to him. Apparently, Steve believes Mizen managed to see that signalling from opposite the murder site, and there would have been a minuscule window allowing for this, plus it would demand Neil having been at Essex Wharf and Mizen passing - and glancing to his left, noticing the lantern - up at the opening to Bakers Row at the exact same smallish fraction of time. I think that would be a stretch, to say the least.

I have not checked whether the material allows for Neil having gone over to the Essex Wharf side before signalling to Mizen, but I note that whereas you have Mizen at Thomas Street, Edwards sketch allows for him being at Queen Anne Street when Neil saw him, and the distance between these streets is not very long. The distance from Thomas Street to Bakers Row is much longer, as is the distance from Queen Anne Street to the murder site. And so I don't know if we can allow for Neil having thought that Mizen was in Bakers Row when he was at Thomas Street, but not that he made that mistake if Mizen had advanced to Queen Anne Street. But I note your remark, of course.

[Simon Wood]

Check it out, guys.

PC Neil could not have had line of sight to PC Mizen's Bullseye lamp.

And vice-versa.

The idea is BS.

[drstrange169]

>> ...Mizen may also have put on his lamp in search of the woman.<<

As I understand it, policemen's Bullseye lanterns were always on.
They had a leather shield to prevent it burning them when it was hooked on their belt.
They also had the ability to make it brighter or darker, but it always stayed on.

[FrankO]

If Mizen had his lamp on in search of Neil, then that implicates that he had an intention of seeking out the PC mentioned by Lechmere.

Quite possibly, yes, but, seeing that Lechmere had not told him exactly where the woman was supposed to be lying and Mizen (oddly) hadn’t asked about it, Mizen may also have put on his lamp in search of the woman. Would that be odd or, even, impossible?

As for Neil, he says that he went over to Essex Wharf AFTER he had seen Mizen. He does never say a word about going over the street in order to be able to see Bakers Row, he simply says that on seeing another PC in Bakers Row, he signaled him down.

In fact, at NO point does he say a word about "going over" to Essex Wharf. So, how does he get there then? Doesn't this prove that he can have gone to Essex Wharf without explicitly saying it or without it having been explicitly written down by the journalists?

Neil just says that he "in the meantime rang the bell" there. As far as I'm concerned it's perfectly possible, too, that he went over to Essex Wharf to ring the bell when he spotted Mizen, so he signalled Mizen, waited for him, sent him for the ambulance and then turned back to what he was about to do when he spotted Mizen: ring the bell at Essex Wharf. Something like what seems to have happened with Mizen when Lechmere & Paul came along. He was just about to knock up at a house when Lechmere spoke to him and after the men had left, he continued his knock up there. Does Mizen say this explicitly? No. Still, it is a view that fits with his statement.

Whatever the case, none of the possibilities I've put forward violate what Neil stated. Just like the one you propose doesn't.

You make the suggestion that Neil was aware of the difficulties involved in seeing all the way up to Bakers Row from the murder site, and although it may sound credible at first glance, I think it becomes less so when we give it some afterthought. It is only if we identify a future need to see all the way down to Bakers Row from the exact spot where Nichols was found that we will check such a thing out. It would have been a gliding scale, where the opening to Bakers Row gradually came into sight as Neil walked over to the other side, and if he came walking down that side it would have been the same thing - a gliding scale.

You don’t seem to get my stance, Christer. I'm not saying that Neil saw Mizen when he was in Baker’s Row. I'm saying he could have seen him walking on the footway just west of upper Thomas Street. Not much gliding scale there from a position close to Essex Wharf.

Are we to surmise that he know exactly how much of a street that could be seen from every spot along the beat?

What a ridiculous thing to suggest. Common sense was ALL that Neil needed. If he wanted to see as much as he could down the western part of Buck's Row (even if that would turn out to be little), staying by the body simply wouldn't have been the best thing to do. Knowing there was a bend in the wider part of Buck's Row, he would know he just HAD to move towards Essex Wharf. Of course, he could have strayed a bit from Essex Wharf to the east or the west and/or return a bit towards the southern side of the street to see if he could see more and in so doing decide what would be the best position. And no one is talking about how Neil MUST have known distances EXACTLY. As you well know.

And did he ever walk Bucks Row from east to west, or was it always walked from west to east - in which case the panorama would be BEHIND him...?

We both know the answer to that one, Christer, so the question belongs to the same category as the previous one.

Personally, I think the logical thing to expect is that Neil would have been aware that Mizens beat took him through Bakers Row but NOT down Bucks Row. Therefore, if he saw him, he would very naturally surmise that Mizen was in Bakers Row!

And that last thing is exactly what poses the “problem” for me. How would he “naturally” surmise that Mizen was in Baker's Row when he was actually so very much closer to him and would have arrived much earlier at the crime scene than if he would actually have come all the way from Baker's Row? Again, I have no doubt that Neil knew his beat very well indeed, including the layout of Buck's Row. I'm also sure that he may not have known the exact (or perhaps even approximate) distances in yards, but that he, nonetheless, had a very good feel for the distances involved is quite clear to me. He HAD to, as it was part of his job to walk at a certain, not normal, walking speed. Every round that he made, over and over again.

PS. I live in a winding street in Helsingborg, Sweden. If you ask me, I cannot say how far I can see in either direction. Then again, I am no PC.

But I'm guessing that you DO know that your line of view reaches until the first bend - whatever the distance - and that you'll know which bend it is.

Vi ses!

[John Wheat]

One more thing, Herlock: I am not saying that Steve is dishonest, I an saying that his bias has gotten the better of his judgment. The difference is huge.

Pot calling the kettle black.

[Elamarna]

If Mizen had his lamp on in search of Neil, then that implicates that he had an intention of seeking out the PC mentioned by Lechmere. In Steve Blomers world, Mizen had no such intention, he instead chose to ignore the information he was given and was only alerted to the spot on account of Neil signaling him down.

As for Neil, he says that he went over to Essex Wharf AFTER he had seen Mizen. He does never say a word about going over the street in order to be able to see Bakers Row, he simply says that on seeing another PC in Bakers Row, he signaled him down.

You make the suggestion that Neil was aware of the difficulties involved in seeing all the way up to Bakers Row from the murder site, and although it may sound credible at first glance, I think it becomes less so when we give it some afterthought. It is only if we identify a future need to see all the way down to Bakers Row from the exact spot where Nichols was found that we will check such a thing out. It would have been a gliding scale, where the opening to Bakers Row gradually came into sight as Neil walked over to the other side, and if he came walking down that side it would have been the same thing - a gliding scale.
Are we to surmise that he know exactly how much of a street that could be seen from every spot along the beat? And did he ever walk Bucks Row from east to west, or was it always walked from west to east - in which case the panorama would be BEHIND him...?

Personally, I think the logical thing to expect is that Neil would have been aware that Mizens beat took him through Bakers Row but NOT down Bucks Row. Therefore, if he saw him, he would very naturally surmise that Mizen was in Bakers Row!

This is what the evidence suggests, and we know full well that Mizen did go down Bucks Row, so that makes it all work very well together.

PS. I live in a winding street in Helsingborg, Sweden. If you ask me, I cannot say how far I can see in either direction. Then again, I am no PC.

PPS. YToun may want to have a look at JTR Forums, where the thread about the podcast is very interesting right now. Not least are many misconceptions about Mizen from the podcast revealed, and its not looking very bright for Steve...

Christer,

The difficulties of seeing Mizen in Bakers Row, are you will find, not as great as you feel. The evidence says otherwise.

You say it is unlikely that Mizen and Neil would have looked in the correct direction at the same time, that is I am afraid just am opinion.
Neil says such happened.


The so called misconceptions are the opinions and interpretations of Mr Stow. They are personal opinions, they are not facts.

None of what you or Mr Stow say, makes Neil's testimony of seeing Mizen IN Bakers Row, not coming from it, go away.

Steve

[Fisherman]

I'd like to add a couple of things to the above.

We know that Neil, right after sending Thain off to get the doctor, needed someone and perhaps, preferably, another copper, to get the ambulance. Since he had just signalled Thain to the east of him, it was logical for him to direct his attention to the west of him to see if he could anybody there and, perhaps, if he was lucky, another copper.

I'm sure Neil was very well acquainted with the layout of the western part of Buck's Row and have no doubt that he knew that remaining by the body would not get him to see very far down Buck's Row for sure. And since he had no reason to expect Mizen to turn up in Buck's Row of his own accord, it would only have been logical for him to move to a position where he would, at the very least, have a better line of view of Buck's Row, regardless of whether it was too dark to see anything or not. In fact, he only needed to cross the street to have a better line of view down Buck's Row.

Staying by the body would afford a line of view that would not go much beyond Queen Ann Street (around 105 meters). Moving to Essex Wharf would afford a line of view that would go well beyond Thomas Street (around 165 meters). If Mizen would have his lamp on while searching for Neil (which is far from unthinkable), then Neil would have been able to see Mizen when he was even still quite close to Baker's Row. Obviously, this would not be the case if Neil remained by the body. He would have seen Mizen only when Mizen had already covered a little over half of the way from Baker's Row to the crime spot. I find it quite hard to believe that, if this would have been the right scenario, Neil wouldn't have realized that he must have seen Mizen not in Baker's Row, but much, much closer to him while Buck's Row wasn't part of Mizen's beat.

If Mizen had his lamp on in search of Neil, then that implicates that he had an intention of seeking out the PC mentioned by Lechmere. In Steve Blomers world, Mizen had no such intention, he instead chose to ignore the information he was given and was only alerted to the spot on account of Neil signaling him down.

As for Neil, he says that he went over to Essex Wharf AFTER he had seen Mizen. He does never say a word about going over the street in order to be able to see Bakers Row, he simply says that on seeing another PC in Bakers Row, he signaled him down.

You make the suggestion that Neil was aware of the difficulties involved in seeing all the way up to Bakers Row from the murder site, and although it may sound credible at first glance, I think it becomes less so when we give it some afterthought. It is only if we identify a future need to see all the way down to Bakers Row from the exact spot where Nichols was found that we will check such a thing out. It would have been a gliding scale, where the opening to Bakers Row gradually came into sight as Neil walked over to the other side, and if he came walking down that side it would have been the same thing - a gliding scale.
Are we to surmise that he know exactly how much of a street that could be seen from every spot along the beat? And did he ever walk Bucks Row from east to west, or was it always walked from west to east - in which case the panorama would be BEHIND him...?

Personally, I think the logical thing to expect is that Neil would have been aware that Mizens beat took him through Bakers Row but NOT down Bucks Row. Therefore, if he saw him, he would very naturally surmise that Mizen was in Bakers Row!

This is what the evidence suggests, and we know full well that Mizen did go down Bucks Row, so that makes it all work very well together.

PS. I live in a winding street in Helsingborg, Sweden. If you ask me, I cannot say how far I can see in either direction. Then again, I am no PC.

PPS. YToun may want to have a look at JTR Forums, where the thread about the podcast is very interesting right now. Not least are many misconceptions about Mizen from the podcast revealed, and its not looking very bright for Steve...

[Fisherman]

I don't understand what you find odd, but, anyway, like I said it was a minor point, Christer. And the point I was only trying to make, and as far as I'm concerned it still stands, is that Mizen would be a good stretch closer to Baker's Row when seen by Neil in the "Queen Ann Street scenario" than in the "southern Thomas Street scenario" and, therefore, fits better with Neil's statement that he saw another PC in Baker's Row. For what it's worth.

If Neil was on the southern side of Bucks Row, Bakers Row would be invisible from the murder site.
If he was on the northern side of Bucks Row - and he only says he went there AFTER having signaled down Mizen - he could have seen the fewest of feet of Bakers Row, namely the southernmost part of the opening towards Bucks Row. And Neil would have to see Mizen from a huge distance - in darkness. Ergo, it is much likelier to my mind that Mizen was some significant way down Bucks Row as Neil first noticed him.

First of all, we don't know whether he would have covered Queen Ann Street on every round or not. We know this for Winthrop Street (or, at least, this is suggested by Mulshaw's testimony), which according to the Echo of 21 September is a so-called "interior", but this doesn't go for Queen Ann Street, which is part of the "exterior". So, I think we should be very cautious in making such assumptions.

Secondly, the green beat suggested by Edward actually doesn't fit with "The "beat" is a very short one, and, quickly walked over, would not occupy more than twelve minutes.". Edward's green beat is a little less than 700 meters, which would, at a speed of 5 km per hour, be (not too) "quickly walked over" in a little over 8 minutes. At 5.5 km per hour it would have taken around 7 and a half minutes.

We cannot make any certain estimations here and so any assumption will be unsafe. We can see that the whole outlined beat as per Edwards sketch seems too long to cover in 12 minutes, and just as you say, Mulshaws testimony implies that the police did not walk all streets on every beat.

Whether he came from Queen Ann Street or the southern part of Thomas Street, the right-hand side would have been equally odd in both scenarios, because, as you say, the left-hand side was lined by factories and warehouses and in both scenarios he walked on the right-hand side.

The right-hand side would not be as unexpected if he came up from Thomas Street, no, because he would reach the southern pavement first if he came that way and the northern side if he came by way of Queen Anne Street.

[FrankO]

And the point I was only trying to make, and as far as I'm concerned it still stands, is that Mizen would be a good stretch closer to Baker's Row when seen by Neil in the "Queen Ann Street scenario" than in the "southern Thomas Street scenario" and, therefore, fits better with Neil's statement that he saw another PC in Baker's Row. For what it's worth.

I'd like to add a couple of things to the above.

We know that Neil, right after sending Thain off to get the doctor, needed someone and perhaps, preferably, another copper, to get the ambulance. Since he had just signalled Thain to the east of him, it was logical for him to direct his attention to the west of him to see if he could anybody there and, perhaps, if he was lucky, another copper.

I'm sure Neil was very well acquainted with the layout of the western part of Buck's Row and have no doubt that he knew that remaining by the body would not get him to see very far down Buck's Row for sure. And since he had no reason to expect Mizen to turn up in Buck's Row of his own accord, it would only have been logical for him to move to a position where he would, at the very least, have a better line of view of Buck's Row, regardless of whether it was too dark to see anything or not. In fact, he only needed to cross the street to have a better line of view down Buck's Row.

Staying by the body would afford a line of view that would not go much beyond Queen Ann Street (around 105 meters). Moving to Essex Wharf would afford a line of view that would go well beyond Thomas Street (around 165 meters). If Mizen would have his lamp on while searching for Neil (which is far from unthinkable), then Neil would have been able to see Mizen when he was even still quite close to Baker's Row. Obviously, this would not be the case if Neil remained by the body. He would have seen Mizen only when Mizen had already covered a little over half of the way from Baker's Row to the crime spot. I find it quite hard to believe that, if this would have been the right scenario, Neil wouldn't have realized that he must have seen Mizen not in Baker's Row, but much, much closer to him while Buck's Row wasn't part of Mizen's beat.

[FrankO]

I find this odd. Regardless of which street Neil came from, it applies that he was by the body when he "saw a constable up at Bakers Row" as he puts it.

I don't understand what you find odd, but, anyway, like I said it was a minor point, Christer. And the point I was only trying to make, and as far as I'm concerned it still stands, is that Mizen would be a good stretch closer to Baker's Row when seen by Neil in the "Queen Ann Street scenario" than in the "southern Thomas Street scenario" and, therefore, fits better with Neil's statement that he saw another PC in Baker's Row. For what it's worth.

And he would not cover Queen Anne street on every round on his beat - he said it could be covered in twelve minutes, and so the green beat that Edward suggests fits well with that time.

First of all, we don't know whether he would have covered Queen Ann Street on every round or not. We know this for Winthrop Street (or, at least, this is suggested by Mulshaw's testimony), which according to the Echo of 21 September is a so-called "interior", but this doesn't go for Queen Ann Street, which is part of the "exterior". So, I think we should be very cautious in making such assumptions.

Secondly, the green beat suggested by Edward actually doesn't fit with "The "beat" is a very short one, and, quickly walked over, would not occupy more than twelve minutes.". Edward's green beat is a little less than 700 meters, which would, at a speed of 5 km per hour, be (not too) "quickly walked over" in a little over 8 minutes. At 5.5 km per hour it would have taken around 7 and a half minutes.

There is also the simple fact that Neil says "I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street." That means that if he came from Queen Anne Street, he must have crossed the road to the residential side of the street. To me, it sounds like he came from the south and kept to the right. He may of course have crossed the street, but overall, I believe he would be more likely to prioritize the left-hand side of the street, since that was a side lined by factories and warehouses - all places more likely to get unwelcome visitors than the eastern side.

Whether he came from Queen Ann Street or the southern part of Thomas Street, the right-hand side would have been equally odd in both scenarios, because, as you say, the left-hand side was lined by factories and warehouses and in both scenarios he walked on the right-hand side.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for clarifying your view, Christer. I see better what you mean now, however, do not completely agree with it. You mention the example of Goulston Street, but that’s not a good example of what I’m saying. Simply because we don’t know which exit the murderer took to get out of Mitre Square. I’m saying that the murderer can also have taken the exit into Mitre Street and, when he felt safe enough, have adjusted his route to his home or wherever, passing Goulston Street on his way there. So, what I’m saying is that ‘exiting’ the crime scene through Wood’s Building is not necessarily indicative of the further route the murderer would have taken. Even Lechmere as the killer, should he not have decided to stay put, could have chosen a southern exit and still have gone west towards Pickford’s once he felt safe enough to do so. Getting out of site and earshot of the crime spot would be the first priority. Only when he felt safe enough, he would have adjusted his route to where he wanted to go.

The first thing for me is the information about Neil’s beat in the Echo of 21 September. If you follow that, he would have gone from the eastern corner of Buck’s Row south through Brady Street to Whitechapel Road, then turn right and walk all the way west until he reached Baker’s Row, make a right turn again and walk north until the corner of Thomas Street, take a right turn again and cover Thomas Street and Queen Ann Street before returning to Buck’s Row, take a left turn there and walk all the way to Brady Street through Buck’s Row. That is how I read the information. If you go here and measure the exterior of this beat, you’ll see it fits quite well with the remark that “the exterior of the beats are at least a mile in extent and to this distance must be added the interiors.” I measured around 1550 meters. So it fits in this sense.

Obviously, it also fits with the fact that Neil and the 2 carmen didn’t see or hear one another, as there are places north of Buck’s Row where they would have been out of sight from one another: in Cross Street, the northern part of Queen Ann Street and the northern part of Thomas Street that runs in an east-west direction. For me, the northern part of Q. Ann Street fits best.

Then there’s Neil’s saying that “A quarter of an hour previously he was in Whitechapel road, where he saw some people apparently going to market, and some women.”
If we assume Neil walked at a speed of 2.5 miles per hour or 4 km/hr, then he would cover approximately 1005 meters. If you then measure 1005 meters back from the crime spot, you end up in Whitechapel Road. If you do the same, assuming that Neil had entered Buck’s Row through the southern end of Thomas Street just before finding Nichols, then you would end up in Brady Street, a little before turning right into Winthrop Street. In that sense, being north of Brady Street at the time of the murder also fits.

Neil having been in Queen Ann Street while Lechmere & Paul passed this street on Buck’s Row on their way to Mizen also fits better with Neil’s statement that he saw Mizen in Baker’s Row when he signalled to him. Having Neil enter Buck’s Row from the southern part Thomas Street, Mizen would have been much more clearly in Buck’s Row when Neil would have seen and signalled him. A minor point perhaps, as we don’t know how dark it was and other exact circumstances, but it doesn’t make Neil’s statement that he saw Mizen in Baker’s Row go away.

All the best,
Frank

If you go to https://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=31906&page=2 you will find a map and Edwards view of the Neil beat, much the way I see it too.

You write:
"Neil having been in Queen Ann Street while Lechmere & Paul passed this street on Buck’s Row on their way to Mizen also fits better with Neil’s statement that he saw Mizen in Baker’s Row when he signalled to him. Having Neil enter Buck’s Row from the southern part Thomas Street, Mizen would have been much more clearly in Buck’s Row when Neil would have seen and signalled him."

I find this odd. Regardless of which street Neil came from, it applies that he was by the body when he "saw a constable up at Bakers Row" as he puts it. And in effect, there is only a very small gap that allows seeing up to Bakers Row from the murder site, and that predisposes that you cross the street over to Essex Wharf. If you do that, you will be able to see the southernmost fraction of the inlet to Bakers Row. To me, this makes it very clear that Mizen was not in Bakers Row as Neil saw him - he was on his way to Bucks Row and had walked down quite a stretch from Bakers Row.
To believe that Neil passed over to Essex Wharf and managed to get a glimpse of Mizen all that distance away and in darkness at the very second when he came into sight is a stretch to me. To accept that Neil only saw his colleague asa he was already en route to assist him is much likelier. Neil knew that Mizens beat did not encompass Bucks Row and he was not aware that Mizen had been sent to Bucks Row by the carmen, so the logical conclusion for Neil to draw was that if he saw Mizen, then he would be up at Bakers Row.

If the carmen had turned the corner to Bakers Row, Neil would not have seen them at any rate, regardless where he entered Bucks Row from. And he would not cover Queen Anne street on every round on his beat - he said it could be covered in twelve minutes, and so the green beat that Edward suggests fits well with that time.

There is also the simple fact that Neil says "I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street." That means that if he came from Queen Anne Street, he must have crossed the road to the residential side of the street. To me, it sounds like he came from the south and kept to the right. He may of course have crossed the street, but overall, I believe he would be more likely to prioritize the left-hand side of the street, since that was a side lined by factories and warehouses - all places more likely to get unwelcome visitors than the eastern side.

[FrankO]

Last things first. I do not think that Kosminski - or any other killer - must have headed for home after the killings. I took great care to point out that it is nevertheless the parameter that is and will be used as a sort of indicator about a killers identity. There is nothing strange about that; as long as we have no information that the killer would have been likely to take another route, this is the material we should work from.

Thanks for clarifying your view, Christer. I see better what you mean now, however, do not completely agree with it. You mention the example of Goulston Street, but that’s not a good example of what I’m saying. Simply because we don’t know which exit the murderer took to get out of Mitre Square. I’m saying that the murderer can also have taken the exit into Mitre Street and, when he felt safe enough, have adjusted his route to his home or wherever, passing Goulston Street on his way there. So, what I’m saying is that ‘exiting’ the crime scene through Wood’s Building is not necessarily indicative of the further route the murderer would have taken. Even Lechmere as the killer, should he not have decided to stay put, could have chosen a southern exit and still have gone west towards Pickford’s once he felt safe enough to do so. Getting out of site and earshot of the crime spot would be the first priority. Only when he felt safe enough, he would have adjusted his route to where he wanted to go.

I´d be interested to know exactly what it is that makes you place Neil to the north at the time of the murder of Nichols, if you feel up to it.

The first thing for me is the information about Neil’s beat in the Echo of 21 September. If you follow that, he would have gone from the eastern corner of Buck’s Row south through Brady Street to Whitechapel Road, then turn right and walk all the way west until he reached Baker’s Row, make a right turn again and walk north until the corner of Thomas Street, take a right turn again and cover Thomas Street and Queen Ann Street before returning to Buck’s Row, take a left turn there and walk all the way to Brady Street through Buck’s Row. That is how I read the information. If you go here and measure the exterior of this beat, you’ll see it fits quite well with the remark that “the exterior of the beats are at least a mile in extent and to this distance must be added the interiors.” I measured around 1550 meters. So it fits in this sense.

Obviously, it also fits with the fact that Neil and the 2 carmen didn’t see or hear one another, as there are places north of Buck’s Row where they would have been out of sight from one another: in Cross Street, the northern part of Queen Ann Street and the northern part of Thomas Street that runs in an east-west direction. For me, the northern part of Q. Ann Street fits best.

Then there’s Neil’s saying that “A quarter of an hour previously he was in Whitechapel road, where he saw some people apparently going to market, and some women.”
If we assume Neil walked at a speed of 2.5 miles per hour or 4 km/hr, then he would cover approximately 1005 meters. If you then measure 1005 meters back from the crime spot, you end up in Whitechapel Road. If you do the same, assuming that Neil had entered Buck’s Row through the southern end of Thomas Street just before finding Nichols, then you would end up in Brady Street, a little before turning right into Winthrop Street. In that sense, being north of Brady Street at the time of the murder also fits.

Neil having been in Queen Ann Street while Lechmere & Paul passed this street on Buck’s Row on their way to Mizen also fits better with Neil’s statement that he saw Mizen in Baker’s Row when he signalled to him. Having Neil enter Buck’s Row from the southern part Thomas Street, Mizen would have been much more clearly in Buck’s Row when Neil would have seen and signalled him. A minor point perhaps, as we don’t know how dark it was and other exact circumstances, but it doesn’t make Neil’s statement that he saw Mizen in Baker’s Row go away.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Much has been made of Steve’s suggestion that Neil was probably north of Buck’s Row when the murder was committed until shortly after Lechmere & Paul had left the body. According to Edward Stow and Christer this is a view that’s guided by the fact that Steve favours Kosminski as a suspect. I have no suspect but still have come to the same conclusion as Steve. It is simply very much supported by all the evidence there is regarding Neil’s beat.

What especially surprised me is that both Christer and Edward seem to think that the murderer, if he wasn’t on his way to work, MUST have chosen an escape route that talied with his home address. This doesn’t make sense to me. Getting home would not necessarily be the first priority of a killer wanting to leave a murder scene. His first priority would rather be to get away from the scene, whichever way that took him. Unless, of course, he KNEW that he had enough time to get away using a route directly home or that his escape route directly home was safe for him to take.

Last things first. I do not think that Kosminski - or any other killer - must have headed for home after the killings. I took great care to point out that it is nevertheless the parameter that is and will be used as a sort of indicator about a killers identity. There is nothing strange about that; as long as we have no information that the killer would have been likely to take another route, this is the material we should work from.
The prime example is of course the Goulston Street business, where we draw a straight line from Mitre Square, right through the Goulston Street doorway and further out to the east, landing in the vicinity of Doveton Street. There is no certainty that the killer was on his way home when dropping the rag, but making the assumption IS viable and as long as we have no other bids, it is also our best guess.

It is in this context we should look upon Steve and his eagerness to open up the escape routes to the south. Not only does he predispose that Neil was up north when the murder occurred, he also puts Mulshaw to sleep. Plus he asserts us that Mulshaw would openly have admitted that he could have been asleep during the critical hour between 3 and 4. He does not admit that this is in conflict with what Mulshaw himself said at the inquest, and so, once one knows that he favors Kosminski, he becomes every bit as open to an accusation of a bias as I myself am visavi Lechmere. And herein lies a lot of the rub for me - Steve has made it his business to, knee-jerk style, always say that I only reason the way that I do because I favour Lechmere as the killer. One example is my stance that the ripper and the torso killer were one and the same - I only say that because I favour Lechmere, he will tell me. And that is patently false and cowardly, because there is an ocean of similarities, some of them of the very rarest kind, between the series, and so a very good case can be made - with or without Lechmere. Of course, the 1873 torso case rules Kosminski out, and Steve does not like that, I´d say.

Overall, Steve has spent lots and lots of time trying to nullify Lechmere, and he apparently takes that effort into his book too. I find it very odd when somebody claims to have written a perfectly unbiased book, if that book contains inventing material that benefits the authors own suspect, while spending part of it trying to discredit a theory that promotes another suspect, a suspect the author has tried his damndest for years to nullify on public discussion boards (with nothing to show for it). In the end, the two words reaping and sowing come to mind.

I´d be interested to know exactly what it is that makes you place Neil to the north at the time of the murder of Nichols, if you feel up to it.