|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 July 06, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Locating Buck's Row Murder Site:
Archive through July 06, 2001
Author: graziano
Monday, 02 July 2001 - 06:13 am |        | Jon, unfortunately I don´t have the time to contribute actively since I´ve been called far away from home (and from the books) very abruptely but beeing more and more interested in the ´Mary Nichols case´I follow the conversation any time I can.
I picked up one of your very interesting remarks concerning your astonishment that PC Neil and Cross and Paul didn´t meet. Coupled with the one of Ed concerning the time that should have sufficed to the same Neil to complete his beat, I think that it is very hazardous to lean on whatever have been said by Tomkins, Mumford or even the three PCs ( Neil, Thain and Mizen ).
It was a very rainy night.
Itœ my impression (but I´m still digging it out) that the only sinceres witnesses at the inquest (aside from the doctors and inspectors) where Cross, Paul (very likely) and Mulshaw.
The three PCs and the slaughtermen were all covering Neil (and in a lesser extent Thain).
I´ve also got the feeling that the first PC to be on the site was Mizen (this could also explain why there wasn´t any whistling).
Ed, I don´t have the time to follow you up on the "graffito" and the "prime material", but I find it very interesting and concerning the point
about the position of the legs and the dress of Martha Tabram (as for the others) I would be very tempted to say "of course".
Jon, I don´t want to give the impression that I defend at any cost Edœ theory. I recognize that I like a lot every aspect of it but I don´t take it for granted, only mybe not knowing a lot about the case as others I must tell that itœ my impression that it is the most realistic I´ve read till this moment.
Refuting it only because itœ too complicated itœ maybe forgetting (but do not see please any acrimony in my words) that it has not been solved in 113 years.
Graziano.
Ed, concerning the picture, yes, but how?
Graziano. |
Author: Jon
Monday, 02 July 2001 - 10:08 am | | Hello Graziano
I know you are away from your books so we might excuse you confusing Nichols murder with another. The night Nichols was murdered, Aug 31st, it was NOT a rainy night.
I see you are being selective in your choice of witness testimony, this is purely based on your intuition I presume.
This indicates to me your mind is already made up to a certain extent and you are discounting testimony which does not fit your perspective.
This is not acceptable Graziano, as we are not in full possession of the facts, so we cannot arbitrarily discount testimony based on our individual biase.
You discount the testimony of three workers who have no reason to lie, if their individual stories do not agree then you have a case, but this is not so, they tell their story and nothing conflicts with known facts or other witness testimony, so you have no reason to disregard what they told police.
Next you choose to also disregard the testimony of three police (Neil, Thain & Mizen) based on your presumption of complicity. To imply that these three police would go to such an extent to cover for a simple 'cape' story is, if I may say so, preposterous.
You suggest Mizen was the first P.C. to reach the murder site. This is a simple impossibility Graziano, police cannot wander the streets indescriminantly they must stick to their prescribed beats. Mizen's beat was several streets away on Hanbury Street.
The body was found on the beat of PC Neil, no other PC could have stumbled across this body as no other PC had Bucks Row as part of their beat.
Sorry Graziano, but your perspective is based on several missunderstandings of the facts of this case.
I am glad to see another person who is specifically interested in the Nichols case, as I am, and I look forward to you getting back to your books and we can take up the case step by step.
Regards, Jon |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 02 July 2001 - 11:49 am | | O'K Jon, if Victorian Police officers did indeed stay on their beat, why did PC Thain's collegue, leave Thain's cape, on PC Neil's beat. ED.
Graziano, I already have one photo, but it's not a good likeness of Jack, however, I am awaiting another better likeness, I will- e-mail a copy to you when it arrives. ED. |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 02 July 2001 - 12:19 pm | | The next stage of the grafitti does indeed read from bottom to top;
wess
iam
Will
I am
for
but, only if you know how to understand the next change process! But be carefull, because, in fact Wess, is not, Jack. But the text is true. ED. |
Author: Jon
Monday, 02 July 2001 - 01:11 pm | | ED
Where did you get the idea that Winthrop St. was part of Neil's beat?
They were also allowed to walk as fast or as slow as they choose as well as work it backwards, but not wander around across the beats of other PC's when they felt like it.
Not only that but a PC had to give a valid account to his superior if he left his beat for any reason.
Mizen finding the body first is unsupportable. |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 02 July 2001 - 02:18 pm | | Sorry Jon, you are correct, what I actually meant to say was; why did Thain's, fellow officer, leave a cape in a location outside Thain's beat, if Thain was not allowed to leave the beat, except in an emergency?
And why did Wess, a known anarchist, accompany Goldstien to the police station the day following Stride's murder as late as 1600 hours the following day? Was he ensuring that Goldstien said exactly, what was expected of him? Why did Wess go to the newspapers to clear Goldstien's name, and on his own, after the above event? ED. |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 02 July 2001 - 02:29 pm | | Jon, examine the police records in detail, I have not the time in this type of post, but, Neil's supervisors, certainly thought that something was wrong with his report.
And remember they would have taken the length of his beat into account. ED |
Author: Jon
Monday, 02 July 2001 - 02:51 pm | | ED
There is no doubt that several statements conflict, even those of the police, this does not mean there was complicity. The testimony we are left with is second (inquest) or third hand (newspaper) at best. Considering the transcripts, notes, editing etc that went on it is not surprising that we have an occational conflict of testimony.
Here's a suggestion, Thain gave his cape to a fellow officer to hand in to be treated with grease, winter was coming on but he did not need it this particualr night, and as the cape may have needed waterproofing, and this slaughterhouse was not on Thains beat, then he passed it to a brother officer to drop in to be waterproofed.
Reasonable?
(just a thought)
I dont know why Thain had it dropped off at the slaughterhouse, unless someone else has read of a reason, the above is good enough for me.
He passed it to a fellow officer BECAUSE the slaughterhouse was not on his beat.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 02 July 2001 - 03:32 pm | | I'd speculate that Thain didn't need his cape because it was a hot night , the weather was warm enough for plenty of watchers to come out and observe the fire at the London Docks which was lighting up the sky ; also there had been thunderstorms on August 30th suggesting humid weather.
Thain may have handed his cape to a constable to take it to the slaughterhouse , but the fact that he knew this was a friendly place suggests he had visited there in person before. Whether he took it there himself or gave it to the Winthrop Street constable to take isn't really important in the great scheme of things however.
Graziano , we have no reason to question the veracity of the testimonies of the 3 slaughtermen - there is no reason why they should be lying. |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 02 July 2001 - 03:34 pm | | Ed , whats all this about Goldstein ? And who is Wess ?
Can you post a more detailed account on the Liz Stride murder board - as far as I know wasn't Goldstein cleared of any involvement in the murder ? |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 02 July 2001 - 03:38 pm | | As far as I know , the 1881 Census wouldn't give the side of the road that New Cottage was on , but it would be accurate about whether it came before the houses or not. Almost certainly it was on the south side of the road as the ' new ' New Cottage was in 1891.
PS Ed , who was occupying New Cottage in the 1891 Census ? |
Author: Jon
Monday, 02 July 2001 - 08:56 pm | | Simon
That picture you posted on June 12th (archived) from 'True Detective' magazine, although we had doubts, I believe is truely a picture of the elusive 'New Cottage'.
The gateway was modified, likely turned into a garage, but the house is original, do you have any idea who's article it was and the date of the photo?
thanks, Jon |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 03 July 2001 - 04:10 am | | Hello Jon,
for the weather: from the Casebook - Victims - Mary Nichols - "Heavy rains ushered out one of the coldest and wettest summers on record. On the night of August 30, the rain was sharp and frequent and was accompanied by peals of thunder and flashes of lightning."
I suppose that when you refer to the night of the 31st of Aug. it was the same, I mean the night of the murder.
Not a pleasant night to walk.
You are ten thousand times right Jon when you say that discounting testimonies on individual biase is not acceptable.
And you are ten thousand times right when you say that believing the three PCs would go to such an extent (complicity) to cover for a simple "cape" story is preposterous.
I´m less lenient on the impossibility for Mizen to go on Buckœ Row. Cross and Paul just told him that a woman was lying there, maybe dead, and he was not very far away from the spot (at the cross of Baker's Row and Hambury street). Was that not a case of emergency? Where the PCs not allowed in these cases to leave their beats?
To be continued. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 03 July 2001 - 05:44 am | | Hello again Jon,
Before going on, a point must be clear as far as I'm concerned: far away from my thoughts ten thousand miles the belief that the london police (Metropolitan or City's) at the time was incompetent or corrupted and that that was one of the cause of the case not being solved. I find this argument so ridiculous that I even do not want to waste more time on it. So whatever I say about PCs Neil, Thain and Mizen concerns PCs Neil, Thain and Mizen and not the fonctioning of the police at that time.
So now, do I discount testimonies on my personal bias? I hope not, let's see:
PC Neil at the inquest (Daily Telegraph):"The first to arrive on the scene after I discovered the body were two men who work at a slaughterhouse opposite. .... .I had previously seen the men at work. That would be about a quarter-past three, or half an hour before I found the body"
I suppose that when PC Neil says "opposite" he means opposite to the site where the body was found.
The Times referring on the same testimony: " There was a slaughterhouse near, in Winthrope street, and two men who had been working there all night, and who he (Neil) knew well came into Buck's Row while the body was being put in the ambulance.....With the exception of one man who had passed down Buck's Row while the doctor was present, they were the first of the general public to arrive".
The testimony of Neil does not say that these two men were Tomkins and Mumford (Britten or Britton came later) but he clearly says that they were the first to come on the spot after him and that they were slaughtermen.
The reference in the Times makes it quite clear that they were in fact Tomkins and Mumford coming from the slaughterhouse in Winthrope street, not far away from the site.
Were there other slaughterhouses very nearby the site?
Tomkins at the inquest (Daily Telegraph): "When he arrived at Buck's Row the doctor and two or three policemen were there. He believed that two other men, whom he did not know, were also there."
And:" They (Tomkins and Mumford) went to see the dead woman, PC Thain having passed the slaughterhouse at about 4.15 a.m., and told them that a murder had been committed in Buck's Row."
And:"Nobody passed (at the slaughterhouse that night) except the policeman (referring to Thain at 4.15 a.m.)"
PC Thain at the inquest (Daily Telegraph): "Witness was dispatched (by Neil) for a doctor. About ten minutes after he had fetched the surgeon (and thus in coming back with him - mine) he saw two workmen standing with Neil. He did not know who they were."
Doctor Llewellyn at the inquest (Daily Telegraph):"On Friday morning I was called to Buck's Row about four o'clock".
To be continued. Graziano. |
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 03 July 2001 - 07:42 am | | Simon there is no new cottage in the 1891 census.
William Wess was an anarchist he called William West in most books but his real name was Woolf Wess, he changed this to William on his arival in England. He died as William Wess. He was at the International working men's club the night of the Stride murder.
Graziano, I hope you don't mind that I have butted in I am following your every word, Excellent! ED PS The weather forcasts are on casebook productions. |
Author: The Viper
Tuesday, 03 July 2001 - 08:53 am | | Ed,
You are quite right in stating that the 1891 Census does not refer to a New Cottage in Buck's Row. As far as I can ascertain (using the 1873 and 1894 maps and the Goad Plan) the building which has traditionally been referred to as New Cottage appeared as 6 Buck's Row in that Census.
The building known as New Cottage in the 1881 Census was listed between number 1 Buck's Row and the Essex Wharf. Those two locations were on opposite sides of the road, so it's not clear to me which side of Buck's Row this New Cottage stood on. If forced to guess I'd go for the south side, beside no. 1. If I'm correct then the building was destroyed at the same time as the first six houses in the terrace. What really surprises me most though is that those buildings were still there at all in 1881, when the East London Railway had been put through in the mid-1870s. In those days railways were still developed using the 'cut and cover' method which would have resulted in the destruction of that end of the terrace. Paul Daniel seems to have assumed that much in his excellent dissertation, and his logic would seem to be impeccable. Yet we have it in black and white - the Census tells us that those houses were still standing in 1881. Something, somewhere does not add up. Don’t know about other people, but I'm completely flummoxed by it. Congratulations on finding this discrepancy. Having said that, I still don’t think it should affect our interpretation of the murder site. Contemporary descriptions make the scene of the crime clear.
Regards, V. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 03 July 2001 - 02:16 pm | | | The picture from ' True Detective ' magazine apparently comes from William Stewart's 1930s book Jon. |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 03 July 2001 - 06:36 pm | | Viper
New Cottage would have been No.9 Bucks Row in 1891, I'm not sure when the numbering was changed to purely even numbers (2, 4, 6, 8, etc. west to east) but if they were still consecutively numbered (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. west to east) then it was No.9, if even numbered it was No.2.
I am preparing a follow-up dissertation on New Cottage to take us a little further than Paul did.
I think we need some graphics to explain it, so "watch this space" 
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 03 July 2001 - 07:55 pm | | Graziano
For weather reports on the nights of all the murders you can't do better than go to:
http://www.casebook-productions.org/main.htm
- Explore JtR
- Weather Reports.
Well researched data on that site.
(the thunderstorms were around 2-3:00 PM (afternoon) on Aug. 30th.
The term 'opposite', in Victorian parlance had at least three different applications.
A location directly over on the next street was termed 'opposite'.
A pair of buildings facing each other on the same street was 'opposite'.
For a person to stand in front of a building, on the pavement (sidewalk) was to be said to be 'opposite' the building.
Can you explain the references you provided, and their connection to PC Mizen?
Thanks, Jon |
Author: E Carter
Wednesday, 04 July 2001 - 12:51 am | | Jon, can I explain my own thoughts concerning the police officers a little further.
My own research shows that the doctor arrived on scene at 0357.
Lets work backwards from here; this is a useful tool which has seldom been used in this investigation, it's probably more useful than either finger prints, dogs or photo's!
I have check all these times personally! These are minimum times.
It would have taken the doctor 4 mins to get to the scene from his surgery, it would have taken him at least 3 mins to answer the door to Thain and get dressed.
It would have taken Thain 4 mins to get to the the doctors house via the slaughter house. It would have taken Thain 1 minute to travel down Brady Street, to have a brief discussion with Neil before setting off to find the doctors surgery.
It would have taken Neil 5 mins to travel down Bakers Row and to find the body.
This accounts for 17 mins, taking us back to 0340.
I thought you had this in an earlier post, because you were correct, the problem here is that Cross first saw the body at 0345. There should have been some contact!
More importantly, to our investigation concerning Neil comes from the slaughterhouse workers when they were interviewed by the police. Their statements, claiming that they were working when the murder was committed was believed almost entirely due to the evidence of PC Neil who said that he saw them at at 0320.
Remember, we have both agreed that Winthrop Street was not on Neil's beat and there is no way that he could have seen all three from the southside of Bucks Row. 0320 would have been the time Thain was around this area also. But if you dig around you will find more conclusive evidence.
There is much wrong with the Bucks Row site that initially does not makes sense.
PS the 'copy' of the grafitti was indeed doctored. ED
Best Wishes ED |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 04 July 2001 - 03:43 am | | Hello Jon,
P. Mulshaw at the inquest (the Times): " The slaughterhouse was about 70 yards away from where he was.......He did not often see the police there (in Winthrope street were he worked)but during the night he saw two Constables, including Neil."
Now Jon as I see some contradictions in all that.
PC Neil is positive in saying that the two first men coming to the site were two slaughtermen from the slaughterhouse opposite. Seeing the location of Barber´s and the fact that no other slaughterhouses are named in the inquest nor other slaughteres have been interrogated and the references in the newspapers always citing "the" slaughterhouse or "the" slaughterer, I really do not see any other possibility that these men coming before others were not Tomkins and Mumford.
Tomkins says clearly that they do not arrive before 4h20 a.m. in clear contradiction with Neil.
Of course, since in the press (Neil has been before the inquest on saturday, Tomkins goes only on monday) it has been reported that being called around four o´´clock and opening the window Emma Green sees the body of the victim, three or four policemen and two or three other men, Tomkins says to the Coroner that when he goes to the site there are maybe two other men but he does not remember well.
There is also a second contradiction between Neil and Tomkins the first saying that he did see the slaughterers at around 3h15 a.m., the second saying clearly that he didn´t see any soul between 1h00 and 4h15 a.m.
Thain coming back with LLewellyn a bit after 4h00 sees also two workmen but says he does not know them.
I do not repeat here the contradiction between Thain and Tomkins about the cape.
Nor I want to underline the contradictory statement of PC Mizen with Cross and Paul, I mean the one between Mizen and Paul and the one between Mizen and Cross. This is already well known concerning the words : You are wanted "by a policeman". Cross and Paul corroborate eachother.
Why Tomkins couldn´t say he was first on the spot with Mumford after Neil?
I think it would have been hard for him to explain why he just went there. He was working, the slaughterhouse was on Winthrope street not at all being able to see what was happening in Buck œ Row and himself recognize that he could not have heard anything from his working site.
Moreover there wasn ´t any alarm raised (no whistling).
Why could´t he say that he wasn ´t there at all?
In this case how could have Neil justified the presence of the men seen by Green, Purkiss and Llewellyn.
Why Neil spoke about them?
Because it was the truth (they were the first after him, or with him on the spot) and he was interrogated on the saturday and only after his interrogation it became clear that Baxter would have gone through very thoughtfully on every aspect of the finding and that Neil could have had some big problems.
It would have been difficult in any case for him to say (he was in charge of the case beeing the PC on the beat)as Thain did that he didn ´t think to take the identity of the first men who came on the scene.
In conclusion we have PC Neil in contradiction with Tomkins. Tomkins in contradiction with PC Thain. PC Mizen in contradiction with Paul. PC Mizen in contradiction with Cross. Cross and Paul corroborating each other.
The three PCs corroborating each other very nicely regarding the fact that Neil was alone with the body at the site when they saw him. And they saw him right at the same time.
These corroboration is a bit more doubtful in presence of other testimonies ( LLewellyn concerning the men seen by Thain with Neil).
This for the testimony.
What about the fact that Cross and Paul didn ´t meet Neil on going towards Baker ´s Row but seconds later he was spotted on the body by PC Mizen (Cross and Paul saying that it would have taken not more than 4 minutes from the moment they left the body to the moment they met Mizen, many of those minutes spent on going towards Baker ´s Row in Buck ´s Row).
Why Neil didn ´t whistle, missing the opportunity to raise the alarm for any other PC in the area (Sgt Kirby) who could be so rendered suspicious about any man in the neighborood?
These are all my thoughts and doubts about the testimony of the three PCs and Tomkins.
Neil was probably an honest policeman but I think there he was not where he had to be and that could have cost it a lot.
The solidarity between colleagues and some friendship with the slaughterers could explain I think many things.
Jon, I ´m really not very happy with the way I have written all that but as I told you I was still digging all it out when I was caught short by your reaction. So maybe all this is not very sewn as it should have been.
I ´m sure we will have the time to go through it again.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 04 July 2001 - 07:16 am | | Ed, Jon, why do you think Winthrope street was not on the beat of Neil?
Whatever happened that night, I think the Constable on the beat on that street would have been called at the inquest.
Moreover we have a lot of tesimonies who saw the body of Nichols lying (so before it was removed) and around it three or four Constables, never more (Emma Green, Mr Purkiss, Mulshaw ).
Now we know that of the policemen called at the inquest Spratling and Helson (the one who were presents soon after) didnt see the body on the site. It leaves PC Thain (never nearer than Brady street), PC Mizen (H Division), Sgt Kirby (not a "beat man" and PC Neil, this one the only one whose beat could have included (and in a very logical geographical way) Winthrope street.
Of course the fact that he has been seen on this very night in this very street by Mulshaw tends to confirm that.
Graziano. |
Author: E Carter
Wednesday, 04 July 2001 - 12:43 pm | | Graziano, as far as I am aware Neil's beat included Whitechapel Road, Bakers Row and Thomas Street before he entered Bucks Row. Then I believe he returned to the Whitechapel Road via Brady Street. It has been mentioned that he had a very short beat that only took twelve minetes to complete, the above route would take about twelve minetes. However as soon as possible I will check this ED.
PS as soon as the photo I am awaiting arrives I will send you a copy via e-mail. I can send personal e-mail but I have had problems posting directly to the casebook for some reason. The man you will see in the photo killed Coles on his own, he also arrived in New York at the time of the Carrie Brown murder. |
Author: E Carter
Wednesday, 04 July 2001 - 12:51 pm | | | Graziano, you under estimate your work, it's both clear and logical, it's also extremly good. ED |
Author: E Carter
Wednesday, 04 July 2001 - 01:56 pm | | Viper, I believe there can be no doubt that at some point a 'New Cottage' stood to the West of number 1 Bucks Row. Was it still there at the time of the murder? As far as I can see, no other structure in Bucks Row was ever named 'New Cottage'. The numbers were consecutive in 1891 ED.
|
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 04 July 2001 - 02:44 pm | | Yes, Ed. Perhaps I could have made the last reply a bit clearer.
1). "I believe there can be no doubt that at some point a 'New Cottage' stood to the West of number 1 Bucks Row". Agreed. The 1881 Census evidence says so.
2). "Was it still there at the time of the murder?" That's a key question. The newspaper reports of the inquest tell us that there was a New Cottage. Whether it was the same one or not I'm unsure. My understanding is that at least one other Casebook regular is conducting an investigation into this subject, so perhaps he can provide the answer. What has become obvious (partly from your work) is that some of the statements made by authors and researchers in the past about Buck's Row have been incorrect.
3). "As far as I can see, no other structure in Bucks Row was ever named 'New Cottage'." Well, the term certainly doesn't appear in the 1891 Census. We can't conclude much from that though. There was definately a building (or buildings) known as New Cottage in 1881 and 1888, so we have to ask where it had gone by 1891.
4) "The numbers were consecutive in 1891" Agreed. Consecutive numbering of the terrace 6-29. My contention is that the first property in the terrace was probably Emma Green's house. Unfortunately I couldn't find any reference to Mrs. Green in the 1891 Census, suggesting that she'd moved. Had she still been there it would have given us a fixed point of reference. There was a big turnover of residents between the 1881 and 1891 returns, proving that people changed their lodgings very frequently in those days. That said, the head of households for numbers 15,16 and 17 were all still the same, telling us that the basic numbering of the terrace remained constant even though the western-most houses had disappeared.
Hope this clarifies things a bit.
Regards, V. |
Author: E Carter
Wednesday, 04 July 2001 - 03:58 pm | | | If Emma green's house was the first house number in Bucks Row, then Browns stable, to the west, had no apparent number or identity. More importantly, several witnesses refer to Polly's body being discovered out side an 'old stable yard' belonging to Mr Brown. How did they build New cottage onto the east side of the structure shown in Simon's picture. It's certainly not an 'old' stable yard. It looks about twenty years old. Best Wishes ED. |
Author: E Carter
Wednesday, 04 July 2001 - 04:27 pm | | Viper. Allow me to ask this question. 'Forget the witness testimony for a moment'! If you were deducting the facts from the evidence as we know it now, where would you place 'New Cottage'?
I am concerned about the police statements because they could have had reasons for not giving out the correct location. More importantly the second copy of the Goulstone Street Graffiti, copied by Warren, has been tampered with. Therefore we can be sure there was serious interest in hiding the facts, from someone inside the police.( Jon do you agree that Warren copied this from the wall, from the evidence I provided some time ago?) ED |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 04 July 2001 - 04:41 pm | | The logical conclusion about New Cottage is that it was demolished sometime between 1888 and 1891 , and what was left of Brown's Yard probably went with it.
Ed , your idea about the Goulston Street graffiti being subtly altered is an intriguing one. But what second copy are we talking about ? The only version copy of the writing that I have seen is the one which seems to mimic the spacing on the wall , I suggested how this might have looked on one of the Goulston Street Graffiti boards. What other version is there ? |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 04 July 2001 - 06:04 pm | | Ed,
You list a number of points here. We'll take them in order, and let's warn disinterested readers to skip the rest of this poste here and now, cos it will be as interesting as watching paint dry!
First, you wouldn't expect a stable yard to have a street number, it not being a dwelling or a place of business to which mail would be delivered.
You place a lot of emphasis on it being an 'old' stable yard - maybe too much. If the stable hadn't been well maintained and looked a bit ramshackle a journalist might very well use the word old indiscriminately.
Next, it's a great pity I don't have a scanner, so you'll have to bear with me now... There is a picture taken at the same time as the one Simon provided for us in a book called East End Then & Now by Winston G. Ramsey. It’s in front of me right now. I believe the photo appeared in William Stewart's book from the 1930s originally. It shows a break in the kerb, behind which is a set of gates. Polly Nichol's body was found at the entrance to that gateway. The building to the left (i.e. to the east) in the photograph is, I believe, the New Cottage of Emma Green. It has one ground floor window on the stable side and a front door on the far side, where the house adjoins the next in the terrace. Now, I mention that door because it's interesting. The houses in Buck's Row and in Winthrop St. were built to an unusual design. The long terrace was designed such that if you looked at any two adjoining houses in these terraces, one would have its doorway on the left and one would have its doorway on the right. So that way you either got two front doors next to one another or two downstairs windows next to each other. (Hope you can follow this!). Where the front doors were together they were contained in a large, arched recess in the brickwork, one course of bricks deep. Sorry if this isn't clear, but if you have the books by William Stewart, W. G. Ramsey or Dan Farson (though his picture actually depicts Winthrop Street) you'll see this. Now, in these pictures by William Stewart you can see that the doorway of New Cottage is next to another front door, but it is not contained in an arched structure - there is half an arch over the adjoining building's door which is not replicated on New Cottage's side. That's because the building is a later addition, grafted on to the end of the terrace.
This is important because you ask in your second poste where I'd place the body, testimony aside. Surely it's impossible to do this without testimony. However, we can try to locate New Cottage and then place the body beside it. Take a look at the Goad Plan on the Casebook Productions site. You'll see the last house on the western (left-hand) end of the terrace is an irregular shape to the others. That would be my location of New Cottage, so the body is in the entrance to the gateway immediately to the left of it. If you have a copy of the 1873 ordnance map available you'll see that the equivalent house was a regular shape within the terrace. More evidence, in other words, of New Cottage being a 'one-off' construction grafted onto the end of the shortened terrace. (Because, of course, the biggest difference between the 1873 map and the Goad Plan [or come to that the 1894 ordnance map] is that the terrace was still complete in 1873 and ran up to the Board School).
As for police statements being incorrect, here we are getting into an area I’m uncomfortable with. Some of the police reports survive but the official Nichols inquest records don't; we have only the newspapers to rely on for the testimony. Are you therefore suggesting that the papers reported a wrong location because the police misled the Coroner as to the location of the body? If so, wouldn't the other non-police witnesses such as Cross, Paul, Purkiss, Mrs. Green, Dr. Llewellyn and the slaughterhouse workers all have needed to be in on this odd little conspiracy? The evidence contributed by some of them is consistent in their positioning of the body. Besides, what would be the point of conspiring to move the body to a location only yards away in any case? Sorry, we get a lot of allegations like this in different people's theories, but I really can't buy any of them. In consequence I have no comment to make about the alleged tampering with the Goulston Street graffito.
Regards, V. |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 04 July 2001 - 08:21 pm | | Viper
Firstly, any plot of land in cities today has a lot number. I suspect as much was the case in the late 1800's. When you have an access way which is the same width as a house frontage, in this case approx. 15ft, then the city are obliged to allocate an identification to that lot because anyone can come along in future and build a house there (I'm refering to the stable entrance).
If new cottage had been given the street number '1' then what would they call the future house?. This is my reasoning why the 'new cottage' was given No.2, the lot adjacet to it will carry 'No.1', when & if a house would be built there. The city planers do this today.
Next, I will try poste the pictures that artists drew of 'new cottage' on the morning of the murder, and those here can compare them with William Stewarts photograph. In this case the similarities speak volumes, I seriously believe William Stewart captured 'new cottage' for us in the 1930's, before it, and the house immediately adjacent to it, were demolished.
The O. S. M. of 1873 shows us 15 pairs of houses running west to east between the board school & the pub. Each house had a frontage of approx 15ft (give or take 6") and after the railway demolished the first 9 houses (Nos. 1 - 9) someone rebuilt a cottage on the site of where No.9 had been. Therefore what looks like half a house to us built onto 'new cottage' was really No,10.
Then after the street was renumbered, the first 'lot' was reserved for No.1, so the first house (new cottage) was allocated No.2, then 4, then 6, 8, 10, etc. to the end, and on the O. S. M. of 1894 you can count 23 houses remaining after new cottage, making 24 in all.
I also noted that irregular shape to the Bucks row side of the pub, but to include it as a house would require an odd number of houses, which is not supported.
Sorry Graziano & ED. I must review some of the testimony to try to evaluate where you are coming from.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 04 July 2001 - 08:41 pm | | I purposely left out the Goad's map because the street numbers do not appear clear enough for me to read.
The first house (from the left) looks like a '2', then a '4' then the rest are hardly distinct, but the 11th house looks like '22', which it should be.
The last 10 houses (at the right) numbered 30 to 48 appear clear enough to read, but heres the problem, there is 4 houses between '22' and '30', and logic tells us there should only be three (24, 26, 28).
I need an enlarged version to see where the discrepancy is.
The Goad map shows 24 houses designated with a 'D', but an extra one numbered '48' without a 'D'. - thats the problem. |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 04 July 2001 - 08:59 pm | | | Ok, I found the enlarged version, a Goads map of 1899, it confirms the numbering I suggested above (2, 4, 6, 8, etc.), I'll try poste it tomorrow. |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 05 July 2001 - 04:16 am | | Jon
If the terrace had thirty houses originally, (i.e. fifteen pairs), and the most easterly one, which you call 48, is excluded, being possibily absorbed into the pub at the corner, then we are left with the 1-29 which matches the 1881 Census return perfectly.
In the 1899 Goad Plan you state that there were 24 houses, plus '48'. Agreed, (though 2 Buck's Row is actually designated S for shop by then). If we take the 1891 Census return where the numbering is 6-29, that's twenty-four as well. But in that case, how do you reconcile this with your statement that nine cottages were destroyed? Wouldn't that mean that there would have to have been four 'new' cottages, rather than one?
You are right about the extra numbered cottage. On the Goad Plan at the CP site, examination with a magnifying glass suggests that it is no. 32 that appears twice. Very odd! One wonders if it was a mistake by the planmaker, and that the last cottage proper should have been 48, and that the apparent extension to the pub should have carried no number by then?
The modern style of numbering (2,4,6,8) applied by the time of the 1899 Goad Plan. It didn't apply in 1891 when the old consecutive numbers system was still in use. I suspect the changeover occurred in the mid-1890s when Buck's Row was renamed Durwood Street.
Regards, V. |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 05 July 2001 - 04:37 am | | Viper, and Jon, my next question was going to be why would anyone want to build a stable yard next to a railway? However your posts may well have answered an important question that has lingered in my mind. Now I need to do something that should be the most inportant element of any researchers work; think about it!
Thank's for your posts. ED.
PS, By the way when I discovered that Brunel had invented a way of tunnelling under the Thames, and his work was linked to the East London Railway, it made me think about the possibility of a tunnel under those six houses. |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 05 July 2001 - 04:44 am | | Simon, I will go into this on another board, however there are two copies of the grafitti at the Public Records office. They accompany a letter from Warren to the secretary of state, saying something like 'I took a copy of the graffiti on the wall of which I send you a duplicate'.
The second copy has been doctored.ED There is no doubt in my mind. |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 05 July 2001 - 04:49 am | | | PS Viper did you notice that a Beer Shop was listed on it's own? ED |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 05 July 2001 - 10:59 am | | Hi Ed:
You ask "why would anyone want to build a stable yard next to a railway?" I don't mean to sound facetious, but this reminds me of the question a tourist asked about why Revolutionary War Fort Mifflin in Philadelphia was built next to the Philadelphia Airport. The answer is that possibly, just as the fort stood there before the airport, the stableyard was there before the railway. I think this is indicated by the odd dogsleg that goes from the gates into the stable itself. It could be that some of the stableyard was lost when the railway was cut through the district.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 06 July 2001 - 10:06 am | | | I accept your argument! ED. |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 06 July 2001 - 10:47 am | | However, as Philip Sugden suggests there is nothing like facts! At this moment in time, I can prove that there was a 'New Cottage' to the West of Number 1, Bucks Row; in 1881. Therefore there was no reason to pull this cottage down to run a railway line through the passageway in 1874. I can also show that no cottage of that name existed later than this, including 1891, or at any time after this date.
I can show that PC Neil could not have heard PC Thain's footsteps from the postion most claim to be the murder site, and that Thain could not have seen PC Neil's torch from Brady Street.
In fact I can make mincemeat of those two police officers stories!
This includes asking why Neil was able to confirm the statements of men, who were in a place, and at a time he should not have been. Winthrop Street was not even on PC Neil's beat!
And if Neil is lying; logic, also has it, that so must Thain! Why did Thain run around in circles before collecting an unimportant cape, on his way from a dire murder?
Why did Cross, Paul and Neil not cross paths? If everyone is telling the truth; back tracking informs us that these people should have met!
Lets look at the inquest testimony. I can prove that no one has researched this site properly, because if they had, someone would have noticed that 'New Cottage still existed in 1881.
I can show you four experts place the murder site elsewhere to popular belief.(one expert who actually interviewed a local man, who was alive in 1888). I have also provided a photograph taken by two local historians who place the site easewhere.
I must also ask why the sketch in the New York Herald Sept 1891 does not show a path cut in the pavement entrancing Browns stableyard, and he did not show a grate attached to both the outside wall wall and gate.
Jon if there's any thing I can do to help with your dissertation, please don't hessitate to ask. Best Wishes ED. |
|
|
|
|
