|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Archive through June 25, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Locating Buck's Row Murder Site:
Archive through June 25, 2001
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 08:18 pm |        | The picture of the stables which Simom placed here
was taken by artist William Stewart in the 1930s for the 50th anniversary of the ripper murders.The pier to the left of the picture is the East pier. One or two cottages were demolished and the East pier was knocked down.The entrance to the stable was extended East and a brick wall was built with two small windows in it next to the new East pier. The West pier was not moved and it was here that I believe Nichols was killed. The width of the new stable entrance was 5 yards. The distance from the West pier to Brady Street was 121.6 metres when I measured it.From the West pier to the front of the board school it is a distance of 31.1 metres. From the front of the board school to Court St it is a distance of 61.8 metres. From Court Street to the whitechapel Road it is a distance of 62.1metres. From Court Street to the London Hospital it is a distance of 40 metres The distance between Court Street and Woods dwellings on the WH/Chapel Rd is a distance of 70.6metres.One can get from the London hospital to the murder site via Woods Dwellings in a time of 1min and 58 seconds. Via Court street it takes 2 minutes and 18 secs. I have no reason to doubt that the site I went to was the correct one.All distances were timed. These are just a fraction of the times and distances I have which will be made available soon.The photo Simon produced is the stable in Bucks Row. The stable was also known as Mullins stable.I hope this information is of some use. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 08:32 pm | | | Ps, According to the 1891 census Mrs Lilley and her other half William lived at No.7 Bucks Row.Eddowes lived at 10 Bucks Row in 1881. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 12:34 am | | Hi, Ivor:
Now why would anyone want to get from London Hospital to Buck's Row? Do I hear a call for D'Onston! D'Onston!??
Hi, Jon:
I can explain Wigan Pier because it actually was on a body of water, a canal I believe, and the name was made famous by George Orwell. However, the Essex Wharf and Eagle Wharf still have me mystified since none of our assembled authorities appear to be able to link these wharves to a canal. Unless wharves can be said to serve the railway, which I suppose is not impossible. My other thought is a lighthearted one, maybe a "d" is missing and it should be "dwarfs" not "wharfs"!!! It might explain a lot about the case. 
All the best
Chris |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 01:25 am | | | Hi Chris, I thought that if anyone was a patient in the London Hospital and they were bored then they could go on a sight seeing tour without straining themselves.Who is D'Onston Chris ? The name seems to ring a bell :-) |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 10:00 am | | Hi Chris,
I thought that Wigan Pier was a sarcastic joke (preceding Orwell, of course): there was no such place, and the intention was to highlight the horrible northern industrial nature of Wigan as compared with seaside resorts like Brighton or Southend.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 10:51 am | | Chris:
Eagle Wharf is just off Narrow Street outside Limehouse Basin where the Paddington Arm of the Grand Union Canal meets Limehouse Cut which joins the River Lea to the Thames.The only Essex Wharf that I can see on the current map is also off the River Lea but further North by the Walthamstow Marshes. Wigan Pier is of course on the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, does exist (sorry Martin) and has some sort of exhibition centre on it now. It's also close to the new Armoury museum.
It's not widely known that George Orwell (Eric Blair) was the grand-uncle of our present Leader and Tony got most of his ideas about caring and efficient government from 1984. |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 11:46 am | | Hi Peter,
Eagle Wharf, Buck's Row is so thoroughly itemised in the 1888 Kelly's Directory that, as something of a novice at place-tracing in 1983 I followed Stephen Knight's inaccuracy in the first draft of my 'Murder Guide to London', and placed the body opposite it! (I was trying to remember that horrible howler when Tris asked some time ago what shocking goofs and gaffes those of us who are widely known had made when we started out).
I don't query the existence of the canal in Wigan; nor do I dispute the suggestion that some jetty on it has the facetious local nickname 'Wigan Pier': I only suggest that it is not its official name and never was. (Or if it is now, it's bowing to local jocular custom. Tho' po-faced municipal authorities don't often do that. Consider Middlesex Street/Petticoat Lane).
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Jon
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 11:58 am | | Actually Martin, not even a jetty (pier), its just the usual sidewalk along the Leeds - Liverpool canal, as CG & PB have indicated.
http://www.wiganmbc.gov.uk/pub/leis/info/leisure/wiganpier/
Some sort of ironic joke that took root in the mind of mankind over the years.
My wife, from Warrington, talks about Wigan Pier, its a local joke.
As to how it evolved, I'll take the above Orwell story as good enough, something I always wondered about.
Thanks, Jon |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 01:17 pm | | Hi, Jon:
Yes I believe the premise of George Orwell's 1937 book The Road to Wigan Pier is that he was making a facetious play on the fact that fashionable seaside resorts (which Wigan most assuredly was not, being a drab northern inland industrial town) had pleasure piers. He thus set out to "find" the pier and, not finding it, instead wrote about the hardships of the workers in the industrial towns of the north. It seems therefore an extreme irony and possibly something that would have appalled the left-leaning if not Communist Eric Blair aka George Orwell that capitalism has "found" Wigan Pier and there is now such a place to be visited on the Leeds and Liverpool Canal even with a gentrified establishment called "The Orwell" which caters functions such as weddings. See http://www.wiganpier.co.uk/content/home.frames.html with a dishevelled-looking George Orwell at top left with fag end drooping from his lips with smoke drifting up!
Chris George
Peter: I take it you are having us on about Tony Blair and Orwell's 1984. I detect some heavy sarcasm! |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 01:24 pm | | | Can I just say thank you to Ivor for clearing up the confusion over the Buck's Row picture , at least we know now that a rail was present at the site in the 1930s. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 04:55 pm | | | Thanks Simon, I meant to ask you What was the Ripper story in the May Issue of True Detective? Some of my work appeared in the June issue so I wondered what the previous story was about.For the record page 28 of the June Issue shows a map which includes Martha Turner as the first ripper victim.The map shows 6 victims. This map was included by the editor and has nothing to do with me. I only list 5 victims in the Whitechapel series.Martin may be interested to know that Roy Archibald Hall was in the summer issue which came out in July. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 06:25 pm | | The May edition of ' True Detective ' gave a quick overview of the Ripper case , and then discussed the occult-based theories of Leonard Gribble and Dr Forbes Winslow concerning it : the photos of the victims were reproduced and a photo of each crime scene was shown , although some were model reproductions. ( ie the Kelly and Stride murder scenes ). The photo of Eddowes in her casket was wrongly labelled as being Liz Stride.
Simon |
Author: The Viper
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 07:21 pm | | Sorry Peter, official names or not, I think there is evidence that the names Essex and Eagle Wharf were in general circulation with regards to Buck's Row. In the case of the former, I can remember actually seeing the building with the name inset; a sort of fancy pseudo-riche Victorian affair with ornate brickwork, but lacking the features of rustication etc. that a genuinely affluent design of the time might have incorporated.
The Tower Hamlets Local History Library has three regular librarians, all of whom are very well versed in the history of the area. Spoke to one of them earlier today and he was quite intrigued, but very sceptical, about the whole idea that Buck's Row was ever located by a canal. The 1797-99 map held by the library shows no such thing and having consulted maps ranging from 1809-47 personally I must now express the view that the information is incorrect. Martin, or anybody else, is free to prove this statement wrong and, as ever, I welcome correction by those with better factual information. Unfortunately this leaves us no nearer explaining why Buck's Row is associated with 'wharves'.
Regards, V. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 07:54 pm | | | Thanks for that information Simon. |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 08:44 am | | Correction noted, with thanks, V.
Martin F |
Author: E Carter
Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 05:08 am | | Sorry for the deley, I have tried to post but something went wrong! I intend to write a short essay, but before I do I want to go again to the Family Records Office.
The photo I sent to Martin comes from ' Crime and Scandal'-'the black plaque guide to London'
Barker and Silvester Carr, Constable London. ED> |
Author: E Carter
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 05:09 pm | | New cottage
At the time, the East London Railway was the only underground line constructed as a mainline railway.
The first line proposed in 1798 was designed to travel under the River Thames from Rotherhithe on the southern shore surfacing at Limehouse in the North. However it was not until four years later in 1802 that the Thames Archway Company was formed with the intention to undertake this difficult engineering task. It was another three years before the southern shaft was sunk under supervision of chief engineer Richard Trevithick.
By 1808, the drift of the tunnel, measuring 1.5 m high and 0.9 m wide had reached the low tide mark on the northern shoreline, only sixty metres short of the intended target area.
But inspite of this fine engineering achievement, within one month the tunnel roof had been breached and severe flooding caused the project to be abandoned.
However, all was not lost, ten years later in 1818, Marc Brunel- father of the more famous Isambard Kingdom Brunel- designed and patented the first tunneling shield. To be continued. ED. |
Author: adam wood
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 04:50 am | | Hi Ed
Regarding New Cottage, can I point you in the direction of Paul Daniel's dissertation (http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-new.html)?
Regards Adam |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 05:57 am | | Yes Adam, I would suggest that anyone interested in the site of New Cottage should first read Paul's dissertation, remembering that the author viewed that Bucks Row only ran from North Street in the east to the Board School in the west. Paul also believed that the house numbers on the southside were all even by the late 1888's both points I view to be wrong. Thank's ED.
New Cottage.
In 1813 the shield came to the attention of one of the promoters of the earlier underground tunnel and he sought new backers, a roadway project joining Rotherhithe with Wapping was considered. Construction began in 1825 under the supervision of Marc Brunel but also included several other engineers, Isambard Kingdom aged 20 being one of their number.
The project ran into many problems, construction stopped on several occassions and the tunnel gained the nickname; (The Great Bore).
However on completion Brunel's grandson was passed through the final drift from south to north and became the first person to make a complete crossing under the River Thames. Brunel was knighted for his work on the tunnel in 1841.
Sorry, have to go to work,ED. |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 22 June 2001 - 11:43 am | | The tunnel was opened on 25-3-1846, it had a dividing wall and ornamental arches down the middle. The width was 11.6m width and 6.1m height, but in spite the size which could have taken a roadway or double tracked railway finance for access ramps was never found and the tunnel was eventually used by only a trickle of pedestrians.
The tunnel survived as a curiosity for twenty years untill 1865 when various people involved with the tunnel formed the East London Railway.
Several new routes were proposed, one of which ran through Whitechapel and Shoreditch. Have to go to work now. ED.
PS could anyone give any information on PC Thain, his 'precise' beat, had he been disiplined before or after the murders? I haven't the time to look at MEPO records at the present time. ED. |
Author: E Carter
Saturday, 23 June 2001 - 02:37 pm | | The line through Whitechapel Shoreditch was completed in 1877 Whitechapel & Mile End Station opened in 1884.
At some point after this, between 1881 and 1891 the railway lines were routed through Bucks Row, several houses and structures were demolished in Bucks Row in order to make way for the railway.
We know this from the census records for 1871, 1881, and 1891.
The census for Bucks Row 1871 (Family Records Office, RG 10/516, page 41 of the census) reveals that on the northside was, 1-13, and the CoalBoard.
On the southside (page 63-66) was Malthouse Cottage and numbers 1-29. (at number 1. lived a stablekeeper named Vincent).
At this time (1871) the name 'New Cottage' is not recorded in Bucks Row on the census records.
The 1881 census (RG 11/442) Reveals that the structures in Bucks Row run in this order: Queen Anne Street, Torrs Private House, Coal Depot Counting House, School. Coal Depot, Essex Wharf and New Cottage, 1-29 Bucks Row.
The 1891 census reveals that, New Cottage and the houses from 1-5 have been demolished, therefore the house numbers now begin at 6, and run up to number 29, in consecutive order; Harriet Lilly who was mentioned before by both Ivor and myself lived at number 7, in 1891.
As you can see from the above 1881 census, the structure named 'New Cottage' is actually positioned before( therefore to the west) of the the houses that run from 1-5 Bucks Row and it appears to have been demolished at the same time.( It was certainly gone by 1891)
So you can see the problem I begin to have with the structure you show above, firstly because according to census records it is in the wrong position, and secondly it should not still be be standing the 1930's.
Have to go to work, best wishes. ED.
Back asap. |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 23 June 2001 - 06:52 pm | | Ed , I think you may actually be right !
First of all , congratulations on excellent research here. If I grasp what you are saying correctly , you are saying the original New Cottage occupied by Mrs Green was demolished by 1891 and is NOT the building we have assumed to be New Cottage therefore.
Secondly , Ed is not the only one to believe that Polly's corpse was discovered in the entrance to Brown's Yard ; a famous Ripperologist also believes so as well !
" Less than half an hour later , however , at about 3.40am Polly's body was discovered by Charles Cross , a carman , who was passing through Buck's Row on his way to work at Pickfords in Broad Street. It was lying on the other side of the street , against the gates leading into the yard of Brown's stable and at first Cross thought that it was a tarpaulin."
This quote comes from " The Secret of Prisoner 1167 " by James Tully and is at the bottom of page 109 !
Tully also confirms that the part of Essex Wharf that the Purkisses lived in was around the corner of the warehouse down a small cul-de-sac leading north from Buck's Row : this is the photograph in his book so this is confirmed. And he states that the warehouses were called wharves because at some point they were served by a canal. If you think about it , what other explanation could there be for wharves ?
Tully's map of Buck's Row however repeats the error however that New Cottage was house number 6 on the south side of Bucks Row , as Ed has shown above this is incorrect and the original New Cottage stood west of houses 1-5. However it is possible though that Tully's maps were drawn by another and this person has merely repeated a common error.
To completely confirm your discoveries Ed you would have to find out when the original New Cottage was actually demolished.
Simon |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 06:19 am | | Ed,
Thank you for making your research findings and data about Buck's Row public. It is something I requested a while back, and it is a big help in terms of understanding the statements you have made.
We need to keep the big picture in mind: in my view nothing you have said changes the fact that Polly's body was found outside the gates opposite the Essex Wharf. But what you have done is cast serious doubt over some of the history and layout of Buck's Row as it has been documented previously . That is worthy of further investigation. It's now high on my list of things to look at. You're welcome to any results.
Regards, V. |
Author: E Carter
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 08:33 am | | Simon, before I continue with the essay, a few points concerning the site.
In casebook productions, above--'Maps Bucks row'--there is a drawing taken from the New York Herald Wednesday 11th September 1891, it illustrates the narrow section of Great Eastern Square and includes the area most view to be the murder site. You will note that although this is only a rough sketch, there is no sign of a new cottage, a stable gateway or the curved rail adjoined to the wall seen on the building you kindly posted to the casebook above.
However, the very same article on the following page indicates that the actual murder was on the north side of the road, placing a black cross next to Essex Wharf. To support this PC Neil stated at inquest that he was walking up the 'right side' of Bucks Row; towards Brady Street, when he saw the body on the pavement and then he crossed over the road.
This must place the body on the northside, and further west towards Thomas Street than the location generally thought to be the murder site.
This location would also make a lot more sense of the route PC Thain took to get to Whitechapel Road, unless he really did first run towards Thomas Street, then turn south towards Winthrope Street, then turned back towards the Whitechapel Road. As a local policman Thain must have known he could arrive in Whitechapel Road by simply turning around in Bucks Row and running back up Brady Street. Best wishes ED, Off to work now. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 09:07 am | | ED
If nothing else, you have raised a couple of anomalies here. I expect everyone who has read P.C. Neil's statement, recorded by the press, at the inquest has wondered how to interpret what he meant.
...I was proceeding down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady-street......I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east.
If Neil was walking towards Brady St. on the right-side, then he was on the south side and this route directly looked down Winthrop St.
His view of the murder location down Bucks Row might have been obscured by the board school.
He mentions the lamp outside the front of the board school so we can locate him westward of that lamp, but if he had to cross the road then we are left with two possibilities.
1 - He was on the south-side of the street coming out of Whites Row in the direction of Winthrop St. and looked across diagonally and saw the body down Bucks Row. This is rather a long distance to be able to see at night is a puzzle. If he was any nearer (easterly) then his view of the murder site would have been obscured by the board school, the angle would be too acute.
2 - His reference to being "on the right-side" (north-side?) might have been in reference to a graphic depiction (map?) of the murder scene on display at the inquest. And depending on his position in the room 'right' could have meant the north side, in preference to the south-side.
The approach of P.C. Neil is therefore a little uncertain, but he does clearly describe the murder location, and up to now, this location has been seen to fit the topographical layout of what we all understand to be the accepted murder spot.
The next anomaly is the layout of the houses, as noted by Viper above, we need to look at this again.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 01:35 pm | | I think when PC Neil says he went across to the body , its most probable he meant to say ' over to it ' instead.
Is it not likely that he picked the body out in the beam of his bullseye lantern ? |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 01:50 pm | | | P.S. When I mentioned about the Purkiss house being around the corner above , it is still true that Walter Purkiss' bedroom window overlooked the crime scene and was not more than about 10ft away from it. Sorry for any confusion caused. |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 09:18 pm | | Hello everybody, I find this site very interesting but being italian I often get caught in the "english trap".
Now I do not want to bother anyone but I have a little problem and I can't get out of it by myself.
Concerning the position of the body of Mary Nichols: (from the Times, 03.09.1888 - The Ultimate Sourcebook page 33-34):
Inquest - PC John Neil : "The deceased was lying lengthways and her left hand touched the gate......deceased was lying upon her back. Her bonnet was off her head and was lying by her right side, close by the left hand?????"
Was so her left hand crossing over the body?
If the left hand was on the right side of the body, what was the gate this same hand touched?
Once again, I'm really sorry and probably my question need just a stupid answer, but I beg someone to give it because I'm really frustrated.
Concerning the location, at the inquest the same PC Neil said that "it was dark at the time, although a street lamp was shining at the end of the row". Could this be the lamp that one can see on the drawing in the Pall Mall Budget, sept. 6,1888? - reprinted in Bruce Paley's Book just before page 79. If this is it (just in front of the body)was it possible that the place was so dark as not to not allow Cross and Paul to see any blood?
Could the author of the above drawing have been wrong? He seems to have been very precise.
Thank you again very much. Graziano. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 09:36 pm | | Hello Graziano
I think you have picked up on a typing error, 'by her right side' could be a mistake for 'right by her side'. The bonnet is often reported as by her left hand and her left hand was near to the gate as her body was laid with her head towards the east.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 11:03 pm | | Hello, Graziano:
Welcome to the site. Your English is pretty good. Do not be afraid to ask questions. Some of these reports from the case can be confusing for even those of us who are proficient in English and reasonably well read in the case. So ask if you are confused about anything!
Indeed, Jon might be correct that "by her right side" could be a typographical mistake for "right by her side." On the other hand, "right by her side" sounds to me more like the terminology of today than of 1888, so is that really what is meant?
Graziano, it might also be mentioned that in making such statements the police of the day were trying to be precise and to also follow regular practices in reporting incidents. They can. though, sometimes be so precise and wordy that the meaning is not exactly clear, which seems to be the case here.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 05:13 am | | Graziano. Both you and Jon have picked up on a very interesting point indeed, and it needs to be taken a little further. There were several changes in and around the East End after 1888's, many of the houses were re-numbered; the lowest numbers being sited nearest to the local post office.
Another major change around Bucks Row at the time included demolishing several of the houses another; renaming the nearby streets. But unfortunately, several streets were renamed and the street's former name relocated to another street nearby. This street's old name was then relocated to another street, and again, the street was often very nearby.
An obvious example is Brady Street which crossed Bakers Row on the eastside of Bucks Row in the 1870's until the name was moved to the westside.
Eastenders are notorious for continuing to use the old name, and if interviewed, often they would have continued to use the old street name for several years after it had been changed.
I have tried to keep this in mind when reading about the location of the murders. A reporter or a policman, could have easily thought that the person he was interviewing was referring to a street on the east side of the Row, when the interviewee was actually referring to the street when it was in the west. Infact Donald Rumbelow in casebook productions claims that Brady Street crossed Bucks Row. PS If you don't mind my saying, your English is actually very good. Best Wishes ED. |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 10:37 am | | Continued from above. An edition of Police illustrated actually shows Polly's left arm over her chest. Another shows the south side of Bucks Row, whilst claiming that Browns stable was connected to Essex Wharf which was to the north. (By the way, concerning the word wharf: 1821 Act Peculat; Coal Trade 13 all coals sent out 'Wharf measure'; Remembering there was a weigh-bridge owned by the coal depot sited directly north/west, of the Thomas Street end of Bucks Row. Wharf Measure: English Oxford Dictionary, Vol 12 + bibliography. 1978.
ED. PS By any chance, could you be related to the famous fighter 'Rocky Graziano'? |
Author: graziano
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 12:17 pm | | Thank you Jon, Chris and Ed for your very useful replies.
Now I understand better the location of the bonnet and the one of the left hand.
Still, I have a problem.
The body of Mary Nichols is discovered twice.
First time by Cross ( and Paul ).
And then, only a few minutes later and in a totally independent way by PC Neil.
Do they discover the same thing?
Cross and Paul are not sure if the body is a dead one. Maybe, but maybe not. Indeed the conclusion of the inquest states ( The Times, 24.09.88 - The Ultimate Sourcebook, pg 46 ):"The condition of her clothing suggested to them that she had been outraged and had fainted". Now I suppose that this means that the condition of the clothing only suggested that she had been outraged and Cross and Paul thought that it was possible that in consequence of this outraging she could have fainted. The possibility of thinking of the fainting arising I suppose from the body not being in too bad a condition and maybe still breathing ( Cross used the words "gone off in a swoon"-Illustrd Police News, 08.08.88 ).
This is corroborated by the fact that they do not see the throat being cut, they do not see any bruising, they do not see any blood and nothing particular regarding the face. She is only a bit cold but not too much.
Of course it was dark.
Dark maybe but not total darkness. Cross sees the body some yards away and Paul sees Cross coming towards him. ( And let's not forget the drawing of the murder location in Paley's Book with the lamp just some yards away from the body ).
Some minutes later the body is discovered by PC Neil.
This time in no way could it be the one of a fainted woman. She is quite beheaded and her eyes are wide open.
Neither Cross nor Paul ever spoke about the eyes wide open and they have been quite near the face of the woman. Even in the dark I think it's very difficult to miss wide open eyes (and in our case the face of the woman was towards the sky so presumably is the first thing you look at )and if you see them I can guess that your reaction is not "She's been dead or drunk" as they told to PC Mizen. ( I must say that my friend Aldo who is a forensic (? - he makes autopsies )doctor told me that it is possible to faint with eyes wide open but only in very peculiar cases that really now I don't remember but very far away from ours).
It is also true that Neil needed his lamp to see the blood and the cut in the throat and Cross and Paul didn't have any but they touched the body (they felt the arm, the heart, they tried to pull down the dress, I can even think that totally naturally they shaked, not very much, just to see, the body as any of us presumably would do )and if that was a nearly beheaded body something would have seemed strange in the movements of the head.
So I really think that the body was in far worst conditions when it was found by PC Neil than when it was approached by Cross and Paul.
Now, for the bonnet.
PC Neil finds it near the left hand of the body and the left hand is along the body so quite far away from the head.
Cross and Paul find it "off, but close to her head" (East London Observer, 08.08.88 and Illustrd Police News, same date). This could be another indication that from the departure of Cross and Paul and the arrival of PC Neil something happened to the body.
Just a thought, but I would like to get your opinion.
Thank you again. Graziano. |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 12:25 pm | | | You are much cleverer than you give out. ED. |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 12:37 pm | | | You are much cleverer than you give out. ED. |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 12:48 pm | | In reality, Thain, actually collected his cape from the slaughterhouse 'before' he knew the body was lying in Bucks Row, and thats why he was so sure that he did not mention the presence of a body to the local slaughterhouse workers, when, later, he wrote his report. He was covering himself, because he knew that the slaughter-house workers would mention that he was off his beat beat at some point. Therefore Thain tried to re-time his presence in the slaughter-house, to a time after the murder. He claimed that that he was called off his beat and took this chance to call into the slaughter-house on his way to find a doctor! But in reailty, would you collect your cape if you were heading to a doctor on a mission of life and death? ED. Neil could not have heard Thain walking up Brady Street, and Thain could not have seen Neil's lamp from the Brady Street end of Bucks Row, because Bucks Row and Winthrop Street tapered towards Thomas Street!
In reality, they discovered the body together! ED |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 12:51 pm | | Hi, Graziano and Ed:
Thank you, Ed, for your explanation of the use of the word "wharf" for the wharves on the north side of Buck's Row. The use of the term for a measure of coal may be the very reason the term was used in the absence of a canal, so I think you have provided what may be a reasonable explanation for the origin of the name in that location.
Ed and Graziano, I would caution both of you not to take what you see in the contemporary drawings as being accurate. The numerous drawings showing differing types of planking in the fence next to Annie Chapman's body in the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street provide a strong indication that the newspaper artists often used "artist's license" for their sketches, which may have been based more on verbal descriptions than on-site sketches.
Graziano, thank you for your very thoughtful theory that Polly's body might have been moved or mutilated between Polly being seen by the carmen Cross and Paul and the arrival of PC Neil. There is a possibility that you are correct, and we do indeed need to look more closely at the testimony to determine if you could be right. Because we do not know where the murderer disappeared to, we cannot know if he was just hiding in the stable yard or elsewhere while the carmen looked at the body, in which case he might have returned after the departure of Cross and Paul and have done more to the body prior to PC Neil's arrival on the scene.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 01:23 pm | | | E |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 01:24 pm | | | EXACTLY. ED. |
Author: Jon
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 07:18 pm | | Let me add to the confusion.....
Some small points that stick in my mind about this murder is to do with the timing of the known witnesses.
Cross walking westward along Bucks Row finds a body across the road, Paul coming from the same direction also stops, they eventually proceed westerly down Bucks Row and 4 minutes (approx) later they bump into PC Mizen. How come they never passed PC Neil coming from the opposite direction?, Neil was at the Bakers Row/Whitechapel Road intersection not a few minutes earlier yet their paths never crossed.
However, in the Daily Telegraph, while standing with the body, Cross is reported to have indicated "Just then they heard a policeman coming".....this is recorded nowhere else.
Next, P.C. Mizen, in the I.P.N. is quoted as saying he met Paul & Cross at the corner of Hanbury & Bakers Row and one of the men said to him, "You are wanted in Bucks Row by a policeman. A woman is lying there".
How did those men know that another policeman had found the body, P.C. Neil said he never passed either of the two men.
All very confusing, which just goes to show the unreliability of newspaper reports.
Regards, Jon |
|
|
|
|
