Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[MrBarnett]

Were they mown down?

It's a lot less bovver with a hover.

I hope you record your puns in a book, Bob Monkhouse style.

[Elamarna]

Returning very briefly to the train.


Having checked a Bradshaw from 1906 the time was 14 minutes.
Modern day freight trains tend to go slower than passenger services, however they do not stop at stations and at 3 am there are unlikely to be many signalling issues.

Unless we can find a definite scheduled time for arrival at 3.30 at Whitechapel of the 3.7 from New Cross it seems that the train may have been recorded as going by at that time.

The press article reads:

It has been ascertained that on the morning of the date of the murder a goods train passed on the East London Railway at about half-past three - the 3.7 out from New-cross - which was probably the time when Mary Ann Nicholls was either killed or placed in Buck's-row.

It can be read that it was the time it passed, rather than the scheduled time; however it is not clear and we must be careful.


Steve

[Patrick S]

MysterySinger, you rock! Do you have any exact quotes from this daughter?

Patrick,

Hey, thanks for that! You are obviously digging deep into all matters Buck's Row and I look forward to seeing what all you turn up. Yes, Lilley is a legit witness. Some additional research on the train times would be useful. Lechmerians will simply have to continue dismissing her, as well as Millous/Mallows. They'll say Lilley was 'asleep' and that Millous is a figment of my imagination. As you can imagine, I'm not terribly concerned about it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thanks, Tom. As with so many things relative to "Chuck the Ripper" we must pick and choose what and whom to believe in order to construct some narrative that points to Lechmere as Nichols' killer.

Although, in my view, even if one does that, the narrative isn't coherent or convincing. Thus it must be with Lilley, as well. We must view Lilley as dishonest. She tells us she was awake. But, she's lying. She was sound asleep. She describes events in detail. But, it's all invention, lest she cast some measure of doubt upon the Lechmere theory. And so it must be with Robert Paul, as well. He's a glory-seeker, the 1888 equivalent of a 21st century aspiring reality TV star. He also holds some grudge against the police, thus he tells awful lies about what Mizen said and did. He's weak-minded, too. Easily controlled by Lechmere, pushed aside, out of earshot, while Lechmere does all the talking, pulling the Mizen scam - not ONLY on Mizen - but on Paul himself! Conversely, every word uttered by Mizen is true. He was tricked by Lechmere, told a PC wanted him in Bucks Row. He didn't continue calling people up. That was a lie told by Lechmere and corroborated by Paul, just because.

Further, we must assume only good, honest, noble, and true motivations for Mizen when he allows PC Neil to testify that he - and he alone - found Nichols body. Mizen was on the scene with Neil. Yet he never mentioned the two men who told HIM about the body. Mizen didn't tell Neil at anytime before his inquest testimony. He didn't tell anyone it seems.......until, that is, he told his story on the stand...AFTER Robert Paul's "Remarkable Statement" in Lloyd's described his actions as "a great shame".

Ah. But he was duped by Lechmere's fraud, Paul's police grudge and his desire for publicity. We must also see Lechmere's appearing at the inquest as sinister, the work of an evil genius. This was no innocent man appearing to do his civic duty. We are asked to believe this man killed Nichols and then appeared at the inquest of his own volition - even though he was barely mentioned in Paul's statement in Lloyd's, he wasn't described beyond being called "a man". Mizen didn't ask his name. Yet he comes forward. But we mustn't believe the most reasonable explanation for him having done so. We must believe others. Harder to believe. Convoluted. Counterintuitive. But, necessary to keep Lechmere in the picture.

[Robert]

Were they mown down?

It's a lot less bovver with a hover.

[MrBarnett]

Esther's birth date in the 1939 register is given as Christmas Eve 1882. She is living at the same address that she was living at in 1965 - #195 Reede Rd Dagenham.

Not far from Pondfield Park, which in my day was terrorised by a gang of vertically-challenged skinheads known as the Pondfield Pygmies .

[Robert]

From the 1911 census it looks like Esther was born at 10 Montague Court - according to her.

[Elamarna]

Dusty

The present journey time is 14-16 minutes. Which doesn't settle anything looking for a 1888 timetable I guess.


Steve

[Robert]

Esther's birth date in the 1939 register is given as Christmas Eve 1882. She is living at the same address that she was living at in 1965 - #195 Reede Rd Dagenham.

[Elamarna]

Hello Patrick,

I did a fair bit of research into the trains from the Eastern Railway a couple of years ago.

The quick upshot is, Eastern were notorious for not sticking to their timetable, so the train could have passed under Buck's Row at any time.

Very interesting Dusty.

Did you happen to find out during that research the scheduled time for the trip from New Cross. Basically is the time quoted by the paper based on the published timetable (the trip was meant to take 23 minutes) or did the paper check what time it actually passed?

Every little bit of data adds to the overall picture.


Steve

[drstrange169]

Hello Tom,

Just read Paul B's review in Rip. As always a fair and informative review.

Well Done!

[drstrange169]

Hello Patrick,

I did a fair bit of research into the trains from the Eastern Railway a couple of years ago.

The quick upshot is, Eastern were notorious for not sticking to their timetable, so the train could have passed under Buck's Row at any time.

[Tom_Wescott]

MysterySinger, you rock! Do you have any exact quotes from this daughter?

Patrick,

Hey, thanks for that! You are obviously digging deep into all matters Buck's Row and I look forward to seeing what all you turn up. Yes, Lilley is a legit witness. Some additional research on the train times would be useful. Lechmerians will simply have to continue dismissing her, as well as Millous/Mallows. They'll say Lilley was 'asleep' and that Millous is a figment of my imagination. As you can imagine, I'm not terribly concerned about it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Patrick S]

Hey, Tom.

First off, congratulations on the book. "Bank Holiday" was wonderful in that it provided a wealth of new information and perspectives. "Confidential" is more of the same. Clearly, the Buck's Row information is very interesting to me, especially the statement made by Harriett Lilley.

Lilley clearly states that a train went by "AS (she) heard the sounds (painful moan, two or three faint gasps)". Thus, she is very clear that these sounds occurred simultaneous with the train passing that location. You tell us that the Echo reported that the "3.7 out from New-cross" passed at "about half passed three". I wonder if you've been able to find any more specific information with respect the timing of the "3.7"? Any departure/arrival records that may help firm up the time?

In kicking this around with others it was suggested to me that Lilley's statement does nothing to exonerate Charles Cross since he himself provided the timings relative to his own departure time, his route, etc. While that's true, I think it misses the point entirely: Had Cross killed Nichols at 3:30am, why would he still be there at 3:45am? If the train DID pass at 3:30am and we accept that as the time the attack on Nichols occurred, we are now required to believe that Cross killed her, dissected her for a quarter of an hour, was still there (even though he likely knew the spot lay upon a PCs regular beat), when Paul came along at 3:45am, heard his approach, remained close to the body, refused to let Paul pass through the scene as he attempted to do, touched his shoulder, asked him to "come see this woman", examined the body in Paul's company, and then continued on with Paul until they met Mizen in Baker's Row.

I loved the bit on Thain, his cloak, and the horse-slaughterers, as well. I posted a treatise on that very topic some time back, making the point that there were other examples of PCs being perhaps less than honest about their actions that night in and around Buck's Row. Thain is a very obvious example of that. Thus, we must be careful in viewing Mizen's testimony about his actions (being told he was wanted by a PC, not continuing to call up, etc.) as a means to indict the testimony of Cross and/or Paul.

Congratulations again on the fantastic and original work!

[Robert]

I think in 1903 Esther was in the workhouse with an illegitimate son (she had not then married Samuels). The son died the following year.

[MrBarnett]

I've trawled through the list of names on the 64/5 electoral registers for Reede Road to see if I recognised anyone, but no luck. I was at the school (Hunters Hall) from 1960 to 1966 and Reede Road was so close it must have been in the catchment area.