Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by DJA 34 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by packers stem 59 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - by c.d. 60 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - by c.d. 1 hour and 12 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Wickerman 1 hour and 19 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by DJA 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (76 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - (15 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (9 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - (7 posts)
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - (5 posts)
Levy, Jacob: Jacob the Ripper - (5 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Witnesses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81  
Old 06-27-2018, 10:11 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,456
Default

Good post, Simon.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 06-27-2018, 12:01 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
Cross said that he had not seen a policeman between leaving Bucks Row and meeting PC Mizen.

This was because he had not seen a policeman, which suggests that PC Neil was not where he said he was at 3.45 am.

Mizen on the other hand told the inquest that he was informed by a carman who passed in company with another man that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row.

This was the policeman Cross hadn't seen, the policeman who wasn't there when he should have been.

It doesn't take a great deal of brain cudgeling to work out what was going on here.

Regards,

Simon
Sorry Simon,

I beleive you are looking for things that are not there.

You say Neil is not there at 3.45, however that is not backed by any reliable sources.
The only way of reaching that conclusion is to accept Paul's very debatable 3.45 in Lloyds.
Why may I ask do people just treat these times as if they are accurate to the second?
Why do people assume 3.45 on one clock or watch would be the same on another?

Indeed what ever Paul used to set his time may indeed have said 3.45, just it was not syncronised with the time source the policemen used. Trying to use absolute times as I say over and over again is pointless!

The times are no exact and it is very probable that it is Paul who is wrong with his time,

It is probable that Neil arrived at the murder site either from Queen Ann st or the Northern section of Thomas street approx 3 minutes after the carmen leave. And that it could have been very close to 3.45 GMT when he did, however it is not possible to be pricise about that.

Mizen himself says he meets the carmen at 3.45, again this should not be treated as if its set in stone to GMT, however it would take about 3 minutes from the murder scene to reach him (2.5-3.5 mins depending on the walking pace) , such fits very well with the possible position of Neil, and would allow him to miss the carmen and arrive at the body at the same approx time that the carmen reach Mizen. Coincidence maybe, but too tight a fit for me.

Once we accept that Paul's time is not set in stone, there is no evidence to suggest that Neil was not there when he should have been.

I understand you idea Simon, but we both know there is absolutely no source or evidence of any sort to support the idea that some police were sciving, None at all.


Cheers


Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 06-27-2018 at 12:09 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 06-27-2018, 08:57 PM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,604
Default

You can fiddle with the time discrepancies as much as you like, but in the end you have to explain how, if everybody was a few minutes out, fast or slow, they managed to agree on 3.45 am.

Of course there is evidence to suggest that PC Neil wasn't in Bucks Row at the stated time. That evidence is the testimony of Charles Cross.

Regards,

Simon
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 06-28-2018, 12:15 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
You can fiddle with the time discrepancies as much as you like, but in the end you have to explain how, if everybody was a few minutes out, fast or slow, they managed to agree on 3.45 am.

Of course there is evidence to suggest that PC Neil wasn't in Bucks Row at the stated time. That evidence is the testimony of Charles Cross.

Regards,

Simon
Simon,

Lets deal with how they agreed

Neil and Thain are both in the same division, the beats overlap. They may well use the same source time when they start their beats and may even use each other as rough checks.

However it is probably that Thain is slightly later than Neil, thus emphasising the problem of taking times as absolute, they are not!

Its not 3.45 that's important, but that Thain is at the end of Bucks Row within a minute approx of Neil.

Similarly Mizen gives a time which fits with the distance walked by the carmen and the probable beat of Neil.

Moving on

Just what evidence does Cross give which says Neil is not there at 3.45?
Come on, what does he say that confirms your view?

Cross does not give a time, other than to say he leaves home about 3.30.
If he gives no time, there is noway he is saying Neil is not there at 3.45, because Cross himself cannot be placed there at 3.45. Nor can such be implied by anything he says with all due respect to you.

We have only 4 times given.

Paul in Lloyds weekly, the reliability of which is very questionable.

Mizen who claims he meets the carmen at 3.45, such as stated above rules out Cross being able to say if Neil is there at 3.45

Neil himself and Thain. Both give 3.45.


One thing which needs to be pointed out is that the beats were not pricise, they are meant to be walked at an average pace, allowing for stoppages.

The suggestion that Neil was meant to be somewhere on his beat at a pricise time is with all due respect unrealistic. If he noticed an open door or window, or engaged a member of the public in conversation his beat could very easily vary by a few minutes on every circuit.

Simon of course you can propose any scereno you want, however the one you wish to do so here, is NOT supported by any evidence.

Best wishes


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 06-28-2018, 01:13 AM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Romford
Posts: 2,363
Default

Steve,

Isn't it likely that Neil and Thain would have coordinated their timings before giving them in evidence?

Gary

Last edited by MrBarnett : 06-28-2018 at 01:18 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 06-28-2018, 02:14 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBarnett View Post
Steve,

Isn't it likely that Neil and Thain would have coordinated their timings before giving them in evidence?

Gary

Hi
Yes they may have Gary, Thain did not appear at the inquest until 17th some two and a balf weeks after Neil. Such would be logical.
One could argue that if the time was the result of collusion and invention Thain would have said 3.46 or just after 3.45 to allow for Neil finding the body first.

I suspect that they often passed each other in the area of Brady Street, and may have used each other to judge thier pace.
It is entirely possible, indeed probably that Neil was the "officier" whom Thain gave his cape to, to drop it off at HB.

None of that of course means that 3.45 is actually 3.45. Just that their relative times were fairly well syncronised.

Of course the question is not was Neil there at 3.45 exactly, rather it is, in the context of Simon's suggestion, was Cross able to actually say if Neil was not there at 3.45?

Of course he was not.

However what we can say is that taking Cross and Paul together it is clear there was no policeman in Bucks Row itself when they walked west towards Mizen.
Such is fully in keeping with the probable beat of Neil.
Unfortunately there appears to be only one detailed account of this beat, that appearing in the Echo. 21st September :


"the third constable would commence at Brady street, cover Whitechapel road, Baker's Row, Thomas Street Queen Anne street, andBuck's row, to Brady street, and all theinterior, this consisting of about ten streets, courts, passage,&c"


In tbe absence of any other evidence to the contrary, I am more than happy to accept that Neil was where he should have been within an acceptable time range of when he should have been there.

To progress a theory that such is not the case, one needs supporting evidence.


How hot is it down there btw Gary? Sweltering in South London


Cheers


Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 06-28-2018 at 02:16 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 06-28-2018, 02:39 AM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Romford
Posts: 2,363
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Hi
Yes they may have Gary, Thain did not appear at the inquest until 17th some two and a balf weeks after Neil. Such would be logical.
One could argue that if the time was the result of collusion and invention Thain would have said 3.46 or just after 3.45 to allow for Neil finding the body first.

I suspect that they often passed each other in the area of Brady Street, and may have used each other to judge thier pace.
It is entirely possible, indeed probably that Neil was the "officier" whom Thain gave his cape to, to drop it off at HB.

None of that of course means that 3.45 is actually 3.45. Just that their relative times were fairly well syncronised.

Of course the question is not was Neil there at 3.45 exactly, rather it is, in the context of Simon's suggestion, was Cross able to actually say if Neil was not there at 3.45?

Of course he was not.

However what we can say is that taking Cross and Paul together it is clear there was no policeman in Bucks Row itself when they walked west towards Mizen.
Such is fully in keeping with the probable beat of Neil.
Unfortunately there appears to be only one detailed account of this beat, that appearing in the Echo. 21st September :


"the third constable would commence at Brady street, cover Whitechapel road, Baker's Row, Thomas Street Queen Anne street, andBuck's row, to Brady street, and all theinterior, this consisting of about ten streets, courts, passage,&c"


In tbe absence of any other evidence to the contrary, I am more than happy to accept that Neil was where he should have been within an acceptable time range of when he should have been there.

To progress a theory that such is not the case, one needs supporting evidence.


How hot is it down there btw Gary? Sweltering in South London


Cheers


Steve
Thanks, Steve. I'm entirely with you on the imprecision of the timings. Even today, with clocks, watches, radio/tv, mobile phones etc I bet most people would be hard pressed to say to within a few minutes at what time they were at the half way point in their daily commute to work.


We are currently back in Romford, until the weekend. It was very hot here yesterday.

BTW, I was pleased by your 'Tomkins withholds and plays games' comment. My view exactly.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 06-28-2018, 03:09 AM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,370
Default

They shouldn’t have have discussed it.

Doesn5 mean they didn’t, just they weren’t supposed to.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 06-28-2018, 03:10 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBarnett View Post
Thanks, Steve. I'm entirely with you on the imprecision of the timings. Even today, with clocks, watches, radio/tv, mobile phones etc I bet most people would be hard pressed to say to within a few minutes at what time they were at the half way point in their daily commute to work.


We are currently back in Romford, until the weekend. It was very hot here yesterday.

BTW, I was pleased by your 'Tomkins withholds and plays games' comment. My view exactly.
Am in Streatham myself, a bit cooler this morning.
My two mobiles are meant to be automatically linked to time, yet there is a difference of 3 seconds.
If you listen to the News on Radio 4 on the internet its a few seconds behind GMT. It maybe upto 30 secondsi think, but am happy to be corrected.
20 years ago if you wanted the correct time you phoned the "speaking clock"

None of this was avalible in 1888, the closest would be telegraph messages sent from say scotland yard, who were probably syncronised with Big Ben(but still not GMT) to police stations. One would therefore expect the times in various stations to be reasonably syncronised, but such is by no means certain.

And yet we still get questions about times, when without sycronised timekeeping, the actual times are nothing but rough guides.



Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 06-28-2018, 03:14 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
They shouldn’t have have discussed it.

Doesn5 mean they didn’t, just they weren’t supposed to.
Agreed GUT,

given Thain give evidence 2 weeks after Neil and even Mizen, its unlikely he was not aware of Neil's claim of finding the body at 3.45

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.