|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Locating Buck's Row Murder Site
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Locating Buck's Row Murder Site
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 24 July 2001 - 04:41 pm |        | Hello Viper,
OK. Let us play the game called: "PCs can only be right because they are PCs and we must not discuss their statements because if they are contradictory it is the fault of the reporters".
The rule of this game beside the holyness of the words pronounced by the PCs is that if the papers reports different statements of the same PCs at the inquest we choose the one who is less contradictory with other statements by other witnesses.
In our case for PC Neil we choose the statement made by the ELO that you, Viper, say is more reliable than the one of the Times.
So, PC Neil states that with the exception of a man passing by when the doctor was already there (this is not the man seen by Mulshaw), Tomkins and Mumford were the first to arrive on the site.
PC Thain says that when he comes back with the doctor two working men were already there.
He adds that he does not know them.
At the moment when he speaks at the inquest he knows Tomkins and Mumford at least because he went to them to fetch his cape.
Since a PC's words are by rule sincer these workingmen cannot be Tomkins and Mumford.
Since I am not good at this game could you please tell me, Viper, who were these workingmen ?
Since I am really not good at this game could you please give me ,Viper, the solution to this quiz on the arrival on the site of non official people just considering the holy PCs statements (for the simplicity we leave out Saint PC Mizen).
Remember:
a. Neil - first one man (while the doctor there), then Tomkins and friend
b. Thain - first two unknown working men (before the doctor comes). He knows Tomkins and friend at least when he speaks at the inquest.
Where is Jon in all that ??????????
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 24 July 2001 - 06:38 pm | | | We can say that Polly was found in the gateway to a stable yard , this stable yard was next to the New Cottage therefore by definition it must also have been next to the Board school and opposite Essex Wharf. Agreed ? |
Author: The Viper
Tuesday, 24 July 2001 - 07:36 pm | | Ed,
Que? Non comprends! The earlier discussions today concerned specific statements made by you about PC Neil, and about perceived anomalies in the evidence. I haven’t commented on the location of the murder or on the topography of Buck’s Row today. Therefore your 3:12 p.m. posting saying "If anyone had posted claiming that 'any other' murder site… was the wrong location, it would have taken us no more than two posts to prove them wrong!" is taking us off at a tangent.
My assessment of the topographical aspects of Buck’s Row was made on Saturday, 7th July and was accompanied by the comment that it would be my final word on that subject for now. Right or wrong, that poste represents the best I could do with the data available (and none of us writing on this thread has yet uncovered sufficient data to prove our respective hypotheses about the layout of Buck's Row beyond doubt). Nothing since written here has altered my conclusions, therefore there is nothing to add. From this you will deduce that I disagree with the view you continue to espouse that the murder site was not located at the place traditionally reported, i.e. directly opposite Essex Wharf and beside Mrs. Green’s end of terrace cottage. I don’t understand your reference to 'convictions', but yes, I believe that the evidence points unequivocally to the traditional location being the murder spot. To summarise, I think you are correct in drawing our attention to previous errors about the layout of Buck's Row, but incorrect in your belief that the murder site has been located wrongly in the past.
It is not my habit, unlike some other posters, to keep coming back in disagreement with people in order to get the last word on a subject. My favoured way of things is for a short debate, followed by a clear, concise statement of position with supporting evidence. Thereafter people can read the topic, digest it, and make up their own minds. Long, dragged-out discussions serve only to confuse the reader.
To try to answer your point, the reason why this issue hasn’t been settled in a couple of postes is that it is so long-winded, convoluted and hard to follow. The information presented is coming out in dribs and drabs. A relatively small number of people have contributed to this thread and a very large proportion of the entries have been yours. People aren’t exactly rushing here to agree or disagree with your main contention. May I respectfully suggest, therefore, that you bring your case for an alternative murder location to a swift conclusion, posting a succinct, bullet-point summary of your evidence. That way you are more likely to get feedback from a wider audience.
Graziano,
I’m afraid I don’t understand most of what you’re saying.
On the subject of the workmen present, this is part of the East London Observer’s transcription of Tomkin’s evidence, "… When he arrived in Buck’s-row with the intention of seeing the deceased, the doctor and three or four policemen were there. He believed that two other men that he did not know were there also." That is closer to Thain’s testimony that it is to Neil’s with its mention of the two unknown men. But that is not to say that it makes Thain and Tomkins correct and Neil wrong. There are a few genuine discrepancies in the Buck’s Row testimony. We can pick these up and it is sometimes interesting to speculate on them. At present I don't see any of these discrepancies affecting the big picture of things, and hold no strong views about them.
Regards, V. |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 25 July 2001 - 05:04 am | | Hello Viper,
"Non c'è più cieco di chi non vuol vedere".
Do you understand me better now ?
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 25 July 2001 - 05:23 am | | Hello Viper,
a doubt surged in my mind as to the fact that you could take my previous message as a sign that I have been offended by your answer or that I am angry at it.
Do not worry, it is not the case at all.
I have some difficulties in being precise as far as the way of reasoning is concerned while expressing myself in a foreign language but here I have no choice.
It is better when I prepare but for the moment I have no time. I will.
But sincerely I find that you go a bit far with the concept of "genuine discrepancy".
We speak about an inquest, where precisely all the discrepancies arising from testimonies should be answered.
And we are far away from that here.
To put everything on the shoulders of the press is a bit stretching too much in my opinion.
Reporters were cultivated people and artist/drawers professionals.
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: the translation of the sentence above should be more or less: "The one who does not want to see, sees less than the blind". |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 25 July 2001 - 08:18 am | | No offence taken, Graziano.
There are discrepancies in the Buck’s Row evidence and they should be looked at. The place to start the investigation is with the accounts we have – and in the case of Buck’s Row that largely means the press reports. Some anomalies can be explained by simple matters of reporting (or editing). Those which are not can then be examined separately. Failure to perform this preliminary audit of the material is likely to result in investigators starting with a flawed premise.
Regards, V. |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 26 July 2001 - 04:53 am | | Hello Viper,
OK. Taken as a lesson.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 26 July 2001 - 01:04 pm | | Hello Viper,
just for my curiosity, what do you think about the fact that neither Walter Purkiss nor Emma Green seem to have heard the three PCs before being knocked ?
I mean, following what the PCs say at the inquest when PC Neil calls for PC Thain he does it with the flashing of his lamp (by the way, was there some police-code in use with such lamp ?) but he also speaks to him, he sends him for the doctor. Then PC Mizen comes, he sends him for the ambulance.
These guys speak to each other, seen the circumstances I imagine they run (or at least they walk with heavy tread), shout, they look at the body, they look for some traces around....
Conclusion: they make some (quite a lot for this time at night) noise.
Both (W.Purkiss and E.Green) say at the inquest that had been some noise made they would have heard it (they refer to the murder but we can translate it to all other noise in the street at that moment) and then they do not hear the PCs.
Sounds strange ?
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: The Viper
Friday, 27 July 2001 - 07:00 am | | Graziano, The issue of noise is an interesting one, not just at Buck's Row but throughout the entire case.
Bearing in mind that the roadway was cobbled; that the East London Railway ran within yards of Essex Wharf and New Cottage; that the District Railway terminated close-by; that the yards of Great Eastern Railway were sited just north of the street, and that there was a busy coal yard in the vicinity, Buck's Row probably was quite a noisy place, at least up to the time of night when the trains stopped running. We do know that people who live in noisy environments, such as beside main roads, develop a higher threshold to noise. Despite the claims of Mrs. Green and of Mr. and Mrs. Purkiss (who claimed she was awake most of the night) that they would have heard a commotion going on, they didn't. Perhaps, therefore, they were used to sleeping through a certain amount of noise.
It appears that in signalling to Thain with his lamp, rather than whistling or calling out, PC Neil was attempting to be as quiet as was possible in the circumstances. Undoubtedly the heavy police boots would have made quite a noise on the roadway, especially if the officers were running. Then again, heavy boots were common footware at the time, so people weren't switched on by the sound of them.
What is remarkable to my eyes is the audacity of the murderer. At both Buck's Row and Hanbury Street he was operating literally outside people's windows. He accomplished his task almost noiselessly (there was the sound heard by Cadosch), but he must surely have been aware that a single lapse or hestitation on his part which enabled the victim to scream was likely to spell the end of his little game. Either he was completely reckless or he was supremely confident in his ability to carry out the deed.
Regards, V. |
Author: graziano
Friday, 27 July 2001 - 10:34 am | | Hello Viper,
not only he (they) was (were) operating literally outside people's window, but, in the case of Hanbury Street on the people's way to throw out of the body what is useless from the precedent evening dinner.
And in the early morning (when a lot of people usually need do it).
Quite amazing.
Too much for my little brain.
I prefer to stick with planifying and collaboration instead of audacity and luck.
Since you speak about Hanbury Street,
Was it possible for a private yard to be at that hour (for the reason stated above) a site of rendez-vous for prostitutes with clients ?
Was it possible for Amelia Richardson, such a religious woman ( jewish ?), to let it for such purpose ? Then to lie at the inquest ?
Was it possible for her not to having known it ?
This guy, her son, John, he says practically that his mother is a lier on the subject. Would you do that against your mother?
Do not worry I do not ask you to answer all that but I just underline the points I am digging in.
For the noise in Buck's Row, you make good points about the habits ( I find them a bit far fetched but nonetheless sensitive ).
Have we nevertheless to believe the not official statement of Harriet Lilley (that Ed Carter found living at number 7 Buck's Row) ?
She heard whispers (only whispers) in the street.
Her threshold to noise was thus probably not very high.
But of course this was some time (not a long one)before the finding of Mary Nicholls' body and I do not have any indication that she was awake at the time of the "meeting" of our PC's trio.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 28 July 2001 - 07:03 am | | With regards Harriet Lilley it is worth pointing out that this a press story only. Mrs. Lilley was never called to give evidence at the inquest. That suggests that the officials didn't attach much importance to her comments.
If you wish to instigate a discussion of Mrs. Richardson it needs to be done elsewhere - unless you want Alegria to erase your handiwork :-)
I've set up an appropriate board under Witnesses.
Regards, V. |
Author: Alegria
Saturday, 28 July 2001 - 09:40 am | | Viper,
Thanks for making my life easier! [smooch]
Ally |
Author: E Carter
Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 10:05 am | | | Sorry, I have been away and only just returned a short while ago. Once I am together, (if that's possible) I'll be back with you ED> |
Author: E Carter
Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 12:10 pm | | Viper, over the last four years I have worked my way through as much of the 'source' material as possible; often to find that other researchers who have claimed to have done the same; have not! My own conclusions concerning the Bucks Row murder are based on the subsequent evidence.
Firstly, I view that at the time of Polly's murder the particular building structures around Bucks Row were in a state of constant change, and this has been a reason for much confusion. (Recently I discovered a 'so called' genuine 1888 map of Bucks Row, later, found to have been charted in 1892 ).
Secondly, I view that because the first serious works concerning these murders was undertaken forty years after the events took place, it has compounded the above confusion; particularly the Bucks Row site.
Therefore; rather than rock the boat, many subsequent transcripts have been written to suit tradition, rather than the facts.
And here, if I may, I will give you an related but relevant example concerning the Polly Nichols murder.
Polly's wounds were reported by the attending doctor, then later, they were reported by detective Spratling who claimed there were two stab wounds on 'Private Parts'. These very same wounds are now claimed by two current authors to be sited in her vaginal canal! And this is absolute Rubbish!
The stab wounds were actually sited towards right illiac fossa of her pubic region!
Thirdly, I have shown you that New Cottage could not have been placed in the narrow stretch of the Bucks Row passageway. I have provided you with the genuine and related facts. These facts were shaped in the form of checkable public records. You appear to answer them by claiming they were a 'clerical error'!
I am sorry, but you will have to do much better than this!
In the past, those who have demand facts, have then overuled these same facts by demanding that their weight of their opinion is stronger, and apparently, because they have written on the casebook for longer than I have!
This is really out of order therefore I will do my work elsewhere in future!
Best wishes ED. |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 07:56 pm | | No, Ed, it is you who must “do much better than this”. At no point have I explained the location of Buck’s Row as a clerical error, as you suggest. You have provided some “checkable and related facts”, such as the Census records, and these have raised some worthwhile questions about the topography of Buck’s Row. Indeed, I have agreed with you that your research shows some previously accepted ‘facts’ either to be in error or at very least highly questionable. What you have singularly failed to do yet, however, is to show that the body was located anywhere but in the traditionally accepted location.
It is not enough to point to marks on selected maps and to cite details on old, but post-1888 photographs - and these have formed a major part of your ‘evidence’. Interpretations of Neil’s exact line of approach to the body won’t be conclusive either. To prove your point you need to produce something which blows away all the existing evidence we have. You haven’t begun to do this. Now, it gives me no pleasure to have to spell things out in eight-inch high letters, but this is the evidence we are dealing with…
From The Times of 3rd September (evidence of PC Neil), “Houses ran eastward from the gateway, while the Board school was westward of the spot. On the other side of the road was the Essex Wharf.”
Also from The Times of 18th September, “Mrs. Emma Green, living at New-cottage, Buck's-row, stated that she was a widow, and occupied the cottage next to where the deceased was found.”
From the same date, “Walter Purkiss stated he lived at Essex Wharf, Buck's-row, and was manager there. His house was in Buck's-row and fronted the street. It was nearly opposite to where the deceased was found.”
Also from The Times of 24th September, “…if deceased was killed where she was found, she met her death without a cry of any kind. The spot was almost under the windows of Mrs. Green, a light sleeper. It was opposite the bedroom of Mrs. Purkiss, who was awake at the time.”
From the Daily Telegraph, 3rd September (evidence of PC Neil), “The gateway was closed. It was about nine or ten feet high, and led to some stables. There were houses from the gateway eastward, and the School Board school occupies the westward. On the opposite side of the road is Essex Wharf.”
Also from the same paper on 18th September, “Emma Green, who lives in the cottage next to the scene of the murder in Buck's- row, stated that she had heard no unusual sound during the night.”
And from the same date, “Walter Purkess, manager, residing at Essex Wharf, deposed that his house fronted Buck's-row, opposite the gates where deceased was discovered.”
You can find other examples too, no doubt, in the Press Reports section of the Casebook. If you want a document other than the inquest testimony, there is Inspector Spratling’s report of 31st August, “I made enquiries and was informed by Mrs. Emma Green, a widow, New Cottage adjoining, and Mr Walter Purkis, Essex Wharf, oppisite…”.
There is a very clear pattern to all this. Spratling, Neil, Purkiss and Mrs. Green are all giving out the same location; the papers are reporting that detail with great consistency, and nobody at the time saw fit to question it. Until you produce something to shake the contemporary evidence of all these people I think you are flogging a dead horse.
Incidentally, to my eyes the history of New Cottage and the long terrace of houses are the points causing most confusion here – not the location of the stable yard (where your efforts have centred). Whether or not the end houses of the terrace were destroyed in the 1870s or the 1880s, and whether or not Mrs. Green’s New Cottage is the same one that appears in the 1881 Census may be interesting little points to some of us, but they don’t affect the big picture. Study the witness statements above in conjunction with a Goad Plan and the location of the body is in no doubt – at least not from any of your pronouncements to date.
If the “weight of my opinion is stronger” – and I’m happy to let other readers decide this - it’s because it is based on the evidence we have, and for no other reason. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with time spent on the Casebook (why would it have?). Nor has anybody "overruled" anybody else, it’s a straightforward case of people disagreeing about which is the better data.
Regards, V. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 10:07 pm | | With regard to Graziano's earlier comment about noise in Buck's Row, I quote from Martin Fido's new book, "A History of British Serial Killing:"
"The police were generally directed not to use their whistles during the night when householders were sleeping unless some emergency such as a fire required they be roused. The third Ripper murder seemed such an emergency, given the state of public panic, that police whistles were heard from a quarter of a mile away at 1.00am summoning aid to the body." (p. 14)
Presumably, then, as there appeared to be no-one in or nearby the murder site who could be charged with the Nichols murder, the police were following SOP in order to minimize the disturbance and clumps of sightseers.
CMD |
Author: graziano
Monday, 30 July 2001 - 08:58 am | | Hello CMD,
this absolutely gives answer to one of the most misterious aspect (that turns out to be not so misterious after all),from my point of view, on the finding of Mary Nicholls body :"Why didn't PC Neil whistle to raise the alarm ?".
This is certainly one good point for the official version of the finding of the body by PC Neil and a bad one for my would-be-theory that PC Neil was not on his beat and that PC Mizen must have come first at the site.
Nevertheless since there are in the case so many "genuine discrepancies", as Viper call them, or "huge contradictions" as I prefer to refer to them, this does not, alone, convinces me that the official version as a whole relates what really happened in a reliable way.
In any case, thank you, very useful.
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: By the way, which one is "the third Ripper murder" for Mr Fido ? |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 30 July 2001 - 09:23 am | | Hi, Viper:
Thanks for quoting the press reports giving the location of Polly Nicholls's body. I think it is clear from these reports and from Inspector Spratling's statement that her body was found in the traditional location where most authors place it, i.e., in the gateway to the stableyard on the south side of Buck's Row east of the Board School and west of the row of houses. I also agree with you that Ed Carter's attempts to place the body elsewhere are not persuasive and that he has come up with no clear evidence that the traditional location is not the right one.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: graziano
Monday, 30 July 2001 - 12:30 pm | | Hello Chris George,
if I go to London and in some ways find that there was a lamp right there where you know I think there was one ( Paley's book drawing), would it cast a serious doubt on the traditional location ?
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 30 July 2001 - 01:15 pm | | Hi, Graziano:
Again I seriously question if a modern lamp that you see on the street today, in the year 2001, could correspond to a lamp that was there in 1888. I think the possibility that the two lamps are on the same spot is slim. The houses from the original Buck's Row are all gone and both the 1888 road surface and the pavements (sidewalks) will almost undoubtedly have been broken up and relaid. Any streetlamps that were there in 1888 will have been replaced perhaps several times over since then. Thus there is no guarantee that a later electric light installed to replace a long-gone gas lamp will have been put in the same location. The only way to know whether any street lamp is in the same location would be to look at municipal records and detailed charts of the street going back to 1888, if such records exist. Perhaps Viper might know. Sorry to be so unhelpful!
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: graziano
Monday, 30 July 2001 - 01:30 pm | | Hello Chris George,
I totally agree with you, but my intention is not to go there to see if there is a lamp now but to find a way to know if there was a lamp there in 1888.
The municipality is certainly one way.
Do you know how gas was distributed and by which company at the time (or was it already a public service ?).
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 30 July 2001 - 01:39 pm | | Hi, Graziano:
I don't know for certain, but I believe the gas in 1888 was probably supplied by private gas companies. Only in the twentieth century was the gas nationalized. On the other hand, although the gas might have been supplied by private companies, the streetlamps were probably put up by the local authorities.
Chris |
Author: The Viper
Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 05:33 am | | Chris, Graziano,
On the 1899 Goad Plan the nearest lamp is quite some way off, outside the tenth house in the terrace. But given that new lamps were erected periodically and old ones moved, we should not rely on the 1899 lighting being identical to 1888's.
The East London Observer of 8th September, in reporting PC Neil's finding of the body, reported, "It was dark, but there was a street lamp on the opposite side some distance away." The Walthamstow & Leyton Guardian, also reporting Neil's evidence, noted his comment, "It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row."
These comments would appear to refer to different street lamps. From the descriptions, neither was in the position depicted in the illustration beside page 79 of Paley's book. That drawing shows a lamp almost opposite the stable yard. I believe the drawing to be in error, the lamp being something of an 'artistic license'.
In each district the local Board of Works (equivalent to a local council) was responsible for providing street lighting. Gas for the lamps was supplied by the privately run Commercial Gas Company. The company charged the Whitechapel Board of Works £3 9s. per lamp, per annum for gas in 1888. The gas company also had to clean and maintain the lamps.
You can see the report of a typical Board of Works meeting at which lighting was discussed by clicking Here. Follow the links at the end of this article through and you will see that street lighting was the cause of a big rumpus at the time. It's one of those fascinating little sub-plots surrounding the Ripper murders.
On 2nd October, the Whitechapel Board of Works passed a resolution critisising the performance of Sir Charles Warren and the Home Secretary. An indignant Warren replied through the columns of The Times on 4th. In his letter he was critical of the Board for failing to provide enough lighting, which played into the murderer's hands. But his chief critic on the Board was a local businessman called Thomas Catmur, who was proprietor of the Eastern Post, (among his many enterprises, some of which appear to have involved conflicts of interest to modern eyes). Catmur's newspaper in turn carried a stinging reposte to Warren's letter on 6th October.
Regards, V. |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 10:45 am | | Hi All,
Graziano, in answer to your question, may I direct you to a piece posted by Stewart Evans a couple of years ago titled "The Lighting of London"? It appears on the Ripper Suspects->George Hutchinson (British) board, archive through April 1, 1999. The date and time of the post was March 29, 1999 at 3:07 PM.
Sorry, I don't know how to embed a link into my posts, but if you go to that message I think your questions on gas lighting will be answered.
Cheers,
Jim |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 11:11 am | | Hello Viper, Jim,
very very useful, thank you very much.
Bye. Graziano. |
|
|
|
|
