|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 16, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Locating Buck's Row Murder Site:
Archive through July 16, 2001
Author: graziano
Friday, 06 July 2001 - 03:40 pm |        | Hello Ed, as I wrote in previous posts I totally share your point of view concerning the testimonies at the Buck s Row/Mary Nichols inquest concerning the three PCs and Tomkins.
There is only one point that bother me.
You say (with Jon) that Winthrope street was not on Neil s beat.
I agree that the two reasons why I believed it could very well have been (Mulshaw testimony and the non citing - never in any newspaper nor at the inquest - of others PCs than Neil, Thain and Mizen) are not necessarily strong ones.
But why it didn t bother PC Neil to state at the inquest that he saw the slaughtermen at work? Was there something more important to hide than the fact of going off his beat?
Inspector Spratling at the inquest states that Buck s Row was "beaten" only by Neil but another PC was on "hearing distance" in Broad Street.
Not very professionnally, being always far from home I do not have any map (I didn t find an appropriate one in Casebook productions) and thus I cannot check where exactly Broad street was situated.
I nevertheless doubt that it was nearer to Buck s Row than Winthrope street.
PS: Thanks for the comments but I just followed and checked your indications.
Hello Jon, in my post of the third of July 5.44 a.m. I cite the Times concerning the second statement referring to PC Neil at the inquest.
It is a mistake. You should instead read East London Observer (08,09,888). Sorry.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Friday, 06 July 2001 - 04:32 pm | | Hello Jon, Simon, I just would like to know what you think about this:
Emma Green and Walter Purkiss (and families) were awaken by the PCs knocking the door (I think it was Sgt Kirby) asking if they heard any disturbance during the night.
That noise was intended to be the one made by the victim and her assailant(s).
They response was "no".
But that "no" included also the noises that must have been made by Neil and the other two PCs.
Shouts, conversations, runs (no whistling).
They didn t hear anything about that.
Were these witnesses not reliable or is there another explanation?
I really would appreciate your thoughts.
Thank you. Bye. Graziano. |
Author: The Viper
Friday, 06 July 2001 - 05:51 pm | | Hang in there, chaps. More research and findings, but it will take a day or two to get things together. If one of you (Jon, Chris?) can possibly scan the appropriate area of the 1873 and 1894 ordnance maps, showing the entirety of Buck's Row, up onto this discussion topic it should help us all. Without them things are hard to visualise. Thanks. If you're a UK researcher and wish to see 1881 Census data relating to Buck's Row then please e-mail me giving your home postal address, (apologies to overseas readers, hope you'll understand why this can't be an open-ended commitment).
Regards, V. |
Author: Jon
Friday, 06 July 2001 - 07:26 pm | | ED
What you suggest to us above "I can show, etc" will require you fulfilling that committment, not all at once you understand  but one step at a time.
To start with, I think you lost me with this 'new cottage' business, I'm not sure if you have suggested more than one premises of that name, and I'm not sure what you mean by 'next to number 1'.
New cottage was next to the gateway where Nichols was found (traditionally speaking), where do you place it? or do you suggest more than one of that name?
Thanks, Jon |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 07 July 2001 - 07:49 am | | The combination of a having more time and a different copy of the 1881 Census to work from has revealed some additional information. This time the copy consulted had been transcribed onto microfiche. It’s much easier to read than the dreaded Victorian handwriting on that microfilm, though it does introduce the possibility of minor transcription errors.
As Ed told us some time ago, Buck’s Row appears under different folio/page numbers within the 1881 census. That was quite normal, but it does give the odd continuity problem – various bits of the street all need to be located. It won’t surprise anybody familiar with Whitechapel’s topography of the time to discover that the layout and numbering of Buck’s Row was a complete mess.
For example, Roll 442, Folio 46, Page 13 lists two inhabited buildings together, one of which is given the address 3 Buck’s Row. Yet we also have a 3 Buck’s Row on Roll 442, Folio 76, Page 10. Likewise, 10-13 Buck’s Row are listed under 442/43/8 to 442/44/9, but properties with the same numbers could also be found in 442/75/7-8 as part of the long terrace. No wonder this topic has generated so much confusion here. Pity the poor postman as he was forced to decide which no. 11 was supposed to receive a stack of birthday cards!
At this point a scan of the appropriate area from the 1873 ordnance map would be useful, but it seems we’ll have to do without. It does look as if the buildings in 442/46/13 were sited between Thomas St. and Court St. at the western end of Buck’s Row, south side of the road. That deduction is based upon the fact that they are sandwiched in the census return between 11 Court St. and 14 Thomas St.
The numbers 10-13 which appear in 442/43-44, along with a dwelling called Malthouse Cottage are more difficult to place, but are followed by another Court Street reference. Therefore it is quite likely that these buildings ran between Court St. and Wood’s Buildings, again on the south side.
It is worth noting that when the District Railway was extended into its new Whitechapel Station terminus (then Whitechapel Mile End) in the mid-1880s, all the properties on the south side of Buck’s Row between Thomas Street to Wood’s Buildings were destroyed. That’s all those above.
That leaves the bulk of the buildings in Buck’s Row which fill consecutive pages of the census from 442/73/3 through 442/77/12. They start at the eastern end of the street on the south side. Here we see The Roebuck pub listed, official address 27-29 Brady Street on the corner. Next door is number 29 Buck’s Row (the last house in a long terrace), then 28 and the numbers run back sequentially to 7. There is no 6, but there are then 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1. Following these we have, in order, New Cottage, Essex Wharf, Coal Depot, House Coal Depot, School, Torr's Counting House and Torr's Private House.
This is where it gets messy. We know for instance that the Board School and the Essex Wharf were on opposite sides of the road, but what about the other ‘named’ buildings? Certainly the coal depot lay on the north side and ran down to the yards of the Great Eastern Railway (which presumably supplied the coal to it), so there must be a strong likelihood that at least some of these buildings are those that can be seen between Queen Ann St. and Thomas St. on the north side of Buck’s Row.
The location of Essex Wharf, a builder’s merchants is known. It was inhabited by the Manager, 25-year-old Benjamin Everest, his wife and two servants. More interesting though are the inhabitants of New Cottage. For here is Walter Boyton Purkins, a 26-year-old carpenter living with his wife Mary Ann, his mother-in-law and three young children. Now, could this possibly be the Walter Purkiss who was managing the Essex Wharf seven years later? If it could we must consider the possibility that the New Cottage of 1881 vintage was a part of the Essex Wharf complex. A side-by-side examination of the 1873 and 1894 maps does show changes to the layout of the Essex Wharf, apparently caused by the building of the East London Railway lines. And it includes the building of the Essex Wharf house in which Purkiss was living in 1888. So again, one wonders if that building was ever known as ‘New Cottage’, in which case it would answer one part of our dilemma. But it would mean, of course, that Benjamin Everest had to be living in another part of the Essex Wharf complex, perhaps above the main building.
Now to the root of the problem. Paul Daniel in his dissertation stated the following “In the creation of the East London Railway in 1875 (opening on 10th April 1876), a cutting was dug through the street, beside the school, destroying several cottages. This left a fairly large site between the railway and the row of cottages on which was built a separate house, different in design from the rest of the row, and designated New Cottage. In 1881 this house was occupied by Walter Borton(?) Parkins and his wife, Mary Ann, her mother, Sophia Ballard, their two daughters, Lillian Ellen and Florence May, and their son, Sidney Walter.” Note first that he’s interpreted the original census clerk’s scrawl differently to the transcriber who copied it onto microfiche and that he doesn’t attempt to associate this man with Purkiss. But my real problem with Mr. Daniel’s comment is this: he notes that several cottages were destroyed to put the railway through. But he then fails to associate this point with the fact that 1-29 Buck’s Row were all still standing. There’s obviously a big problem here somewhere. Either those cottages were not destroyed for the building of the railway in the 1870s, but some time after 1881 instead or numbers 1 to X in the census return were located elsewhere in Buck’s Row - which means that New Cottage was too. Which is it?
Well, for my money plain logic says that Daniel is correct about the reason and timing for the destruction of those cottages. (The 1894 map shows that the cottages have gone, but the map obviously can’t tell us the exact date when this happened). Deep tunneling was possible – in fact the ELR was tunneled right beneath the London Docks when the Wapping to Shoreditch section was built – but it was expensive and surely couldn’t be justified to save half a dozen East End cottages. Most railway development was still ‘cut and cover’. So can we agree that the cottages at the western end of the terrace were pulled down in the mid-1870s to make way for the railway?
Possible supporting evidence comes from the fact that in the 1881 Census, no address of 6 Buck’s Row is shown. Now, the obvious solution (always likely to be the best) is that the cottage was simply empty at the time. The alternative possibility is this; that the long terrace was broken up (by the railway) and ran 7-29, that numbers 1-5 were located elsewhere, and there was no number 6.
There is a modicum of support for this in that the terrace numbering starts from 6 in the 1891 Census. On July 3rd at 8:53 a.m. I ventured the suggestion that New Cottage of 1888 fame was listed as 6 Buck’s Row in 1891, and offered some support for this notion by describing the physical differences in the design of Mrs. Green’s New Cottage on July 4th, 6:04 p.m.
If the 1-5 Buck’s Row listed in the 1881 Census as 442/76/9 to 442/77/11 were not a part of the terrace, where were they? The obvious solution is on the south side between Court Street and Wood’s Buildings. You will note immediately that I’ve already listed that as a likely location for Malthouse Cottage and the preposterously duplicated 10-13 Buck’s Row. I offer this as a possible alternative location but obviously both solutions cannot be right!
This overlong poste might on one level be considered inconclusive waffle. It raises as many questions as it answers, but unfortunately that’s often the way of things. I shan’t poste again on this topic because it’s been hammered into the ground, so please permit me just to summarise my thoughts. Others can then argue against these pronouncements if they wish and readers can draw their own conclusions.
1). Many of the details published about Buck’s Row in the past have been incorrect. Ed has done us all a service in forcing us to reconsider this topic.
2). The building known as New Cottage in 1888, inhabited by Emma Green, was attached to the western end of the long terrace on the southern side of Buck’s Row. It probably appears as no. 6 in the 1891 census.
3). Polly Nichol's body was found at the entrance to the stable yard immediately to the west of Mrs. Green’s house and opposite the Essex Wharf.
4). The westernmost part of the long terrace had been demolished to make way for the East London Railway in the mid-1870s. That was probably six houses, so the remaining terrace was numbered from 7.
5). The New Cottage that appears in the 1881 census is not the same one as Mrs. Green’s.
6). Assuming that point 4) is correct, the location of 1-5 Buck’s Row in 1881 is uncertain.
7). If point 4) is wrong then somebody needs to explain why 1-5 were still standing in 1881 when there had been a good reason for demolishing them several years earlier, yet the buildings had gone by 1891 when there was no apparent reason for their destruction in the 1880s!
Sorry about the length of this poste. I hope that anybody interested enough to struggle through it was able to follow it.
Regards, V. |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 07 July 2001 - 07:59 am | | Incidently, the claim made by Ivor Edwards on 14th June at 8:32 p.m. that Eddowes lived at 10 Buck's Row in 1881 is not borne out by the census. In fact, she's not listed at either address :-)
Regards, V. |
Author: E Carter
Saturday, 07 July 2001 - 01:53 pm | | Grazianno, Jon and Viper.
I will take up all the points soon, (by the way excellent work Viper, both clear and logical).
Personally, I have always thought it sensible to look for a murders motive, then the Modus. This is because the above two factors indicate the killers identity.
I can't go into too much detail here however, I also believe the Bucks Row site was used by the killers for two reasons.
Due to space and time we have here, I will give the main reason.
I view that the killers had a printing press nearby in Romford Street, owned by Der Arbieter Fraint.
Therefore, they drew Polly into an area of their advantage; certainly knowing enough to gain some sort of access to Browns stableyard.
Two conspiritors waited inside the yard whilst their co- conspiritor brought Polly inside the gates, she was ambushed, chloroformed and carried outside to ensure no trail of blood existed between the ambush and killing sites.
I also think Cross disturbed them at their work. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 07 July 2001 - 09:38 pm | | | In relation to the statement made about Eddowes living at 10 Bucks Row I obtained that information from an article written in either Ripperologist or Ripperana. I am looking for the article at the moment. If my memory serves me correctly the article included a photo.I certainly did not believe the information to be false at the time.However when I find the piece in question I will place it on this board.:-) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 07 July 2001 - 10:24 pm | | | Viper, Can you explain what you mean by: In fact,she's not listed at either address. I quoted an article than she was only living at 10 Bucks Row.I never mentioned any other address. What is this other address to which you refer? :-) |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 08 July 2001 - 03:47 am | | Ivor, as stated in the long poste yesterday the 1881 census listed two number 10s in Buck's Row.
Roll 0442, Folio 43, Page 8 has:-
GRIMSHAW, Jeremiah, Head, Married, 82, Tinplate Worker, Clerkenwell.
GRIMSHAW, Sarah, Wife, Married, 87, no occupation, Clerkenwell.
Roll 0442, Folio 75, Page 8 (located in the long terrace) has:-
SPOONER, John, Head, Married, 48, Labourer, Bamsden, Essex.
SPOONER, Jane, Wife, Married, 40, no occupation, Devonham, Essex.
SPOONER, Charles John, Son, Unmarried, 20, Clerk, St. Giles.
SPOONER, Frank, Son, 14, Scholar, Whitechapel.
SPOONER, Jane, Daughter, 11, Scholar, Whitechapel.
Regards, V. |
Author: E Carter
Sunday, 08 July 2001 - 10:51 am | | Excuse my short excursions into the casebook at the moment, I am busy researching.
However, another interesting point here comes from the actual inquest testimony of PC Neil. Who I now believe actually said 'her head was turned to the East' this position would be impossible from the position most claim to be the murder site.
Previously Neil's inquest testimony has supposidly stated that 'her head was to the East'.
The quickest way to check this is on casebook productions,Neils testimony, however I do have further support. ED
PS I also suspect when the person was indicating the wide area of Bucks Row at the western end, the words (Thomas Street) were added. |
Author: E Carter
Sunday, 08 July 2001 - 02:52 pm | | | What do we actually know about the 'Green's' of Bucks Row? Could they possibly have been Jewish Anarchists? We need to examine everyone! ED |
Author: E Carter
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 01:52 pm | | Jon, you should have recieved the photo you asked for by now.
For the record, I place New Cottage i.e the murder scene, on the north side of Bucks Row, at the west end in the wide section known as Bucks Row(Thomas Street). New Cottage being sited opposite to the entrance of an old stableyard also situated in the wide area of Bucks Row, but on the other side of the road.
The Board School being across the road in the narrow area, slightly east, on the corner of Bucks Row and Winthrop Street; the rail embankment mentioned was behind New Cottage.
I view that many of the statements have been confused, often placing people on the other side of the road to the place that they actually lived. I'm off to work now ED
I am very busy at the moment, how ever , soon I hope to have time to write a long essay. ED
PS. The true murder site being shown in the New York Herald Wednesday Sept 11th 1989. |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 05:21 pm | | Hello Chris George,
I know that this is going to be boring for you but please be patient. I do not see other ways to come out of it and I do not want to leave it down (but I am sure you have already experience with breakingfeet newcomers).
I take the opportunity as Ed is coming back on the subject.
Some time ago (it was on my post of 24.06 past) I spoke about the drawing of the Pall Mall Budget - 06.09.88 -reprinted in Bruce Paley s book/pg 79.
I told my astonishment about the darkness referred by Cross and Paul (and then also PC Neil) with which was defined the spot where Mary Nicholls was found because this drawing (apparently very precise and consciousfull-see the grid) reported a lamp just beside (quite above) this same spot.
So I concluded that this could not be the exact spot related by Cross and Paul (even if the press believed it to be).
Now, very nicely, you cautioned me againts leaning too much on those drawings.
Yes, but in the 60s picture showing the same spot more than 70 years later one may see clearly a street lamp in the same position.
Now, seeing what Ed says in the message above I wonder if the "lamp at the end of the row" related at the inquest could have been this one.
Now, my question, is there a way to know for sure if, in 1888, a lamp was standing in Buck s Row on the north side of it, at the height of the Board School?
Thank. Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 05:44 pm | | Hello Ed,
I am very happy to know eventually where your spot of the site is (it took me days to try till now to understand your wording on the subject. Fruitlessly).
Your last post ist in fact very interesting and could explain another riddle in my mind as to why PC Neil stated (for what is worth what he stated) that he saw (from the site of the murder) another Constable (Mizen) passing in Baker s Row.
Sighting that would be clearly impossible from the classical site, not only because Buck s Row is turning quite nicely going from the classical site to the west up the Row but because it was night and Baker s Row would be quite far away (the impossibility to see Baker s Row from the classical site is quite evident also from the picture of Buck s Row of the 60s /A-Z).
The turning of Buck s Row would render even impossible to see the light of a lamp (if I remember well light runs straight).
Now, as I stated in the previous message, the press seems to have believed that the site was not the one indicated by you but the one to the west of the Board school and on the south side of Buck s Row and the indications of Neil at the inquest (aside maybe for the darkness where he got confused) in this respect seem to have been quite clear in favour not of your site but on the classical one.
Was there an intentional intent or just confusion?
Thank. Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 12 July 2001 - 09:26 am | | Hi, Graziano:
Thanks for your message to me. Again, you cannot assume either that the lamp post shown in a modern picture is the same lamp post shown in an 1888-era sketch or that a modern lamp post is on the same spot as a lamp post at the time of the murder. Tonight I will have a look at the drawing in Paley's book. I am still confused as to what exactly Ed Carter is saying. Most of the books are clear that the murder occurred in the gateway leading to the stable immediately to the east of the railway cutting on the south side of Buck's Row. Perhaps you can explain for me where Ed thinks the murder took place, or alternatively where Polly Nichols' body was found if he thinks the murder occurred elsewhere, as I think he might be hinting. Can you help me? This discussion has been going on for some days and I am sure I am not the only one who is unsure what exactly Ed is saying.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 12 July 2001 - 10:35 am | | Hello Chris George, thanks for the answers (both), they are very useful.
Now, for ED s location I generally do not like to speak for others but it will be a good opportunity to check if I got the right idea if Ed will confirm this.
I will of course leave all the explanations to him and since my meaning is that one image is better than one hundred words I advise you to go on the site: www.buzzlondon.com then go on the "street finder", put the name of Durward street and then click on the little icon that appears near Durward street-Spitalfields.
You will have a very good satellite image of the actual site (at the time Bucks Row, Thomas Street, Bakers Row, Winthrop Street, Brady Street....), choose the altitude you want.
ED site should be situated exactly between the two red spots (should be vehicle), much nearer to the one to the east.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 12 July 2001 - 11:09 am | | Hello again, Chris George,
this is pure speculation on my own but note that if at the time there wasn t any house or building in all the space from "Ed s spot" to the crossing of Baker s Row with Hanbury street and Old Montague street (going air straight) this could also explain why Cross and Paul heard a policeman coming.
This was PC Mizen and Cross with Paul went towards him (since this was also the way for them to go to work).
Of course this would also explain why Pc Neil said he was walking on the right side of the street and then he crossed towards the body.
And why he was able to state that he saw a Constable in Baker s Row.
Why then the confusion or the deliberate intent to conceal the real site I think Ed knows a lot about it.
I do not.
But I think I have already explained enough (in a conversation with Jon) why the testimonies of the three PCs are absolutely not reliable.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 12 July 2001 - 11:51 am | | Hi, Graziano:
Thanks for pointing me to the "BuzzLondon" website which looks as if it is going to be very useful. Those two red elongated objects between which you believe Ed Carter is pinpointing the "real" murder location in Buck's Row might be red London buses if the now-renamed thoroughfare, Durward Street, is today a bus route. I am not sure why Ed is choosing that location as the murder spot. In fact, I think he may be mistaken. See below.
Ed stated in his post of Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 01:52 pm: "For the record, I place New Cottage i.e the murder scene, on the north side of Bucks Row, at the west end in the wide section known as Bucks Row (Thomas Street). New Cottage being sited opposite to the entrance of an old stableyard also situated in the wide area of Bucks Row, but on the other side of the road. The Board School being across the road in the narrow area, slightly east, on the corner of Bucks Row and Winthrop Street; the rail embankment mentioned was behind New Cottage. I view that many of the statements have been confused, often placing people on the other side of the road to the place that they actually lived. . . PS. The true murder site being shown in the New York Herald Wednesday Sept 11th 1989 [1889 meant]."
Unfortunately my scanner is currently down or otherwise I would post the sketch to which Ed is referring, which appeared in the New York Herald London edition on Wednesday, September 11 1889 because it plainly shows the murder site in the traditional spot, i.e., in the stableyard gateway on the south side of Buck's Row to the east of the Board School. The Board School is visible on the right side of the sketch, which would be the south side of Buck's Row, and the road runs away from the spectator over the railway cutting toward the stable yard gate. There can be no mistake about this because the round arched windows of the ground floor of the Board School can be seen and they are very distinctive, each with an ornate capstone above the arch. There would have been no other building in the neighborhood, I believe, with such a distinctive architectural detail. Ed is correct that as he said in a prior post that an almost identical view is shown in a 1930s photograph in Ramsey's book. However, yet again, that photograph, again showing the Board School with its rounded windows at right is like New York Herald sketch looking east toward the site of the stableyard gateway on the south side of Buck's Row. It looks to me then that Ed is mistaken. Certainly neither the New York Herald sketch nor the Ramsey photograph support his contention that "the murder scene [was] on the north side of Bucks Row, at the west end in the wide section known as Bucks Row (Thomas Street)."
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 12 July 2001 - 02:08 pm | | Hello Chris George,
very happy to have been useful.
Ok for your comments about the drawings. No matter if you cannot scan it because it is possible to see the drawing of the New York Herald on the Casebook/JTR Explore/Maps/Bucks Row just at the top of the page.
It looks like you have a strong case about the round arched windows.
I leave Ed defending his position.
Note nevertheless that this drawing do not show the grid near the stable gates nor the "passage in the pavement".
This two latter particulars are (I remember) well represented in the drawing in Paley s book. It should be interesting to see how the School Board is represented in this same design (this I do not remember and where I am now I do not find anything about Jack Rosparovitch -or something like- that I could consult).
Thank to look at this same drawing tonight.
As you will see is very well done with care and precision in every particular.
I personally doubt that the author, having taken care of small things (I remember the grid, the side windows, the chimneys...) and thus showing an interest for representing everything as real as possible would have added a lamp on the spot if it had not been there.
I am well aware that newspapers journalists and drawers were certainly tempted to exaggerate such grim particular as blood splitting or the grimaces of the faces or to alter the positions of the bodies to make things look more dramatic (should be better for selling).
I am also aware that the drawings of the bodies in situ could be misrepresentative of the reality because they were often made by what witnesses remembered (the body been moved very quickly, as in the case of Bucks Row without any journalist being present or picture made)and because the author had to do it quickly without too much checking, but here we speak about a lamp (nothing to add to dramacity) and the author had 6 days to elaborate it.
This lamp that does not corroborate the darkness of the spot stated by Cross and Paul (and even by PC Neil), the problems with the classical site as to how PC Neil was able to see PC Mizen in Bakers Row, the fact that he had to go "across" to go to the body walking on the right side, the fact that it was very difficult to see the body from the right side of the street from whatever point in Bucks Row west of the Board School-quite impossible because all was hidden by the same Board school- all that renders me very uncomfortable with the classical site and very lenient to Ed Carter one. But I do not know more than that and you make a strong point with your rounded arched windows.
Let s see what Ed will tell.
Useless to say that the contradictions of PC Neil with Tomkins and with Purkiss, of PC Thain with Tomkins and very likely with PC Neil and of PC Mizen with Cross and with Paul coupled with the lack of whistling from PC Neil renders me very suspicious about all the case of the three PCs.
Add to that as I already told in a previous post what seem to me basic differences in the discoveries of the body of Mary Nicholls by Cross and Paul and then (at least officially) by the single Neil I become suspicious about all the case.
Note, my suspicion is not that the PCs or even the slaughterers are implicated in the murder, but I think as I have already stated that there was a huge need of covering some lack of diligence from PC Neil ( and PC Thain ? ). Lack of diligence that could also have shared a certain responsability for the murder (what if when discovered by Cross, Mary Nichols was not yet dead ? ).
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 09:43 am | | Hello Jon,
where are you ?
Bye (hope to read you soon). Graziano. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 10:01 am | | Hi Graziano
I'm assuming you are refering to Chris George's comment on the 'British Coinage' thread, "when we were kids".
Chris and I are both Northerners, C.G is from Liverpool, I am from Leeds, and I do definitely remember all those old coins, farthings, Ha'penny's & Penny's, (Bun Penny).
Presently I reside a good stretch of the legs away from Leeds, actually in Ontario, Canada, where its blistering hot these days.
Regards, Jon |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 11:25 am | | Hello Jon,
I was just referring to the fact that it s a long time that I do not read your comments on this thread and I appreciate them very much.
I absolutely (but do not take it as an order, just as because of interest) want to know what you think of our three PCs after all what have been said about them.
This said it s very interesting to have informations about people one talks online and with who one shares the same interest.
Was it that to what you referred when you asked where I and Ed came from ?
I am Italian but I do not live often there since for years now I share my life between Luxembourg and the Czech Republic after having spent all my youth in Belgium.
For Ed I do not know. I know him as everyone else here (except for Chris George, Simon Owen and the beatiful Caz who all gratified us with a picture of them) only as a name.
But I really think it s a guy who knows something.
Now I understand the hours at which you post (I even have the impression that the bulk of the aficionados on these boards are from your side of the atlantic).
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 11:41 am | | Sorry Graziano, linguistic confusion.
When I wrote "I need to know where you are coming from", this meant from your perspective, not heritage
I have not posted here since last week because my next poste was about to be some pictures of a location in Bucks Row, but coincidently the following day my scanner quit, I have not been able to find what the problem is and am spending hours of frustration trying a few options.
Did I detect you infering that only guy's know anything about this case?
(thou treadest on thin ice, my friend)
Regards, Jon |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 11:47 am | | Hi Jon,
I think Graziano meant he really thinks Ed is a guy who knows something. Everyone already knows I know nothing (including me).
Grazi Graziano.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 01:33 pm | | I know nothing too Caz , I might have known something once but if so I forgot it. I ' bear'-ly have enough education to do anything !
Simon |
Author: E Carter
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 03:09 pm | | Grazziano, I am up to my neck in work at the moment so it has been impossible to write on the boards, I have that photo and I will send it via e-mail as soon as possible. ( I am not god with computors so be patient. Jon feel free to write your findings on the casebook.
In my past experieces I have been 15% wrong, and it may also be in the case of locating the exact position in Bucks Row. In your private
post, 143/7/01, if you are saying, what I think you are saying, you deserve any credit, as you discovered the photo in question.
I will be back concerning Bucks Row sometime tomorrow, but before I go may I ask you to look at the first two lines of the grafitti.
Now read this : Amun of Thebes was origionally he god of Thebes. He later became popular throughout Egypt as the god of creation. By the time of the new Kingdom, Amun was combined with another powerful god named Ra, the god of the sun.
He became known as Amun Ra, sometimes known as the ram. Best wishes ED. |
Author: E Carter
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 03:14 pm | | | The above description of Amun Ra comes from:The Encyclopedia of the Ancient world, Hardman,Steele and Tames. Southwater. |
Author: E Carter
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 03:51 pm | | | Don't forget to put the capital 'B' up next to the 's', in line 1.ED |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 05:18 pm | | Hello Jon, Caz, Simon,
as Jon said : linguistic confusion.
I do not understand what you all mean in your posts about my (seems unfortunate) sentence about Ed but the meaning is quite simple.
Since I suspect that it is not an english expression and I do not know how to turn it out in such language I can only restate it in the language where it is coming from hoping that there is a french speaker on these boards who can turn it out in english:
: " Ce gars sait quelque chose !!!! ".
Far away from me that only guys know something or that Caz or Simon know nothing or that they are not educated enough. My god !!!! (excuse me, My lord !!!!).
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 05:59 pm | | I think it translates as : ' These guys actually know something ! '
You'll have to forgive my French , I emigrated to France in 1993 to get work drawing BD's( bande desinees = comic strips ) but I wasn't very successful so I had to come home ! I was only in France again last year and only for a very short time , travelling through on the way to Barcelona.
You will have to forgive us our self-effacing English humour Graziano !
Simon |
Author: E Carter
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 03:50 am | | Chris, have you read both pages of the New York Herald? The page you mention (page 1) simply shows a sketch of Great Eastern Square. The following page marks the actual murder site. But unless I am wrong I have also been influenced into believing that the murder site was some yards further north than I had origionally thought. I now also believe that New Cottage' was on the south side, but it was destroyed soon after the murder, I also believe that there was a passageway behind the board school that lead towards Browns Stable. New Cottage laying on the southern half of Bucks Row just behind the board school.
Simon, read from Phillip Sugden, page 120-130 'Suggos book', it gives us a very good idea of the attitude of gentiles towards the "Whitechapel Jews at the time of the murder.
I have been working for very many hours non-stop, so if I can be a little enigmatic, I will answer a private post here; before I retire to bed.
I view that the tall man in Berner Street was blocking Liz Stride's, and not Swartz exit, because when the man in the cap attacked Liz, she ran towards Fairclought Street. ( Would you expect someone like Liz to stand around and get beaten up? The tall man was stationed there to ensure she did not run to towards Fairclought Street. ED. |
Author: E Carter
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 03:53 am | | | It's time for some blinkers and ear muffs, Best wishes ED. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 05:03 am | | Hi All,
I did understand you, Graziano. You confirmed that by saying 'my sentence about Ed', and then saying, in French, if I'm not mistaken:
This guy knows something!!!
I knew you didn't mean that Ed is the only guy who knows anything, or worse, as Jon joked, that only guys (men) know anything.
As Simon says, we English may not know much, but we are excellent at saying so!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 06:43 am | | Hi Ed:
Are you sure there is anything in that New York Herald article of September 1889 that refers to Buck's Row besides the sketch showing the murder site? As far as I can see, without reading the article word for word, the piece seems to be solely on the finding of the Pinchin Street torso and just happens to be illustrated with sketches showing where the other Whitechapel murder victims were found.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: E Carter
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 04:11 pm | | Chris, yes I am sure! The article accurately gives us the site of each murder. He places the Bucks Row murder on the north side just in the western area where the row becomes wider.
I have a copy here, however, when I e-mail the map, the black crosses don't come up very clearly on the other side.
Let me explain about Bucks Row.
When I read about the murder sites, it became clear that Tabram, Chapman, Stride, Eddows and Kelly were all discovered in the sites most claim to be the correct place. I agree!
When I read the Polly Nichols murder, I felt uncomfortable, I was not convinced that the testimony fitted the site.
Therefore I began to research further and realized that most people who claimed to have researched from source, had not. Further research ensured me that something was wrong with the site, as you know, I claim that the murder site most believe to be true, is wrong!
I have two other sites in Buck Row that make sense. South of Bucks Row, and North of Bucks Row the later is almost opposite the first, but nearer to the wider section of the passageway.
For example, let me give an example in another area. I view that if anyone here had met Mary Kelly they would noticed that there was something wrong with her upper teeth. My observation comes from elimination of other possiblities concerning the protrusion of her upper jaw on looking at her skeleton. The best I can conclude at this time is that she had a calcium disorder common in Victorian times. This conclusion has lead me to other conclusions.
I could be wrong! But in my own mind, these conclusions feel right. I think that there is a hatchet and a slipper on the table next to her body! These conclusions fitted with prior conclusions.
I believe that the woman who was seen by Brown on the corner of Fairclought Street was the same woman seen by those who claimed to have seen someone like Mary
Kelly, in Dorset Street after she was supposed to have been killed. ( I think the witnesses were actually telling the truth) I also think that the murders were very well planned.
I believe that when the murderer is exposed, everyone will not say 'who'? Instead, they will say 'you must be joking'! ED |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 05:57 pm | | | Caz you are right - singular not plural ! OOps ! |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 03:22 am | | Hi, Ed:
Since you mention the "black crosses" for the murder sites it appears that you are talking about the map that appears in the New York Herald article not any text in the article describing the murder location, is that right? I have to say, Ed, that is a pretty crude and small scale map on which to base an interpretation that the murder took place on the north side of the street and west of the Board School. Yes, the cross seems to be on the north side west of the Board School but that location is directly contrary to the site as shown in the sketch in the same article which clearly indicates that Nichols was found in the stableyard gateway to the east of the Board School and on the south side of Buck's Row, where everyone else places her body. What if I were to say to you that the artist did not place the cross in the narrow part of Buck's Row because it would have interfered with the lines he needed to show for the narrow street? The placement of the cross is not definitive, Ed, and I do not believe you can use this crude map as proof of where the victim was found. It is merely a locator map showing the readers of the New York Herald the vicinity in which the murders took place. Sorry.
Best regards
Chris George
P.S. My scanner is down (like Jon's!) otherwise I would post the map here for everyone to see. |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 01:50 pm | | Chris, I am saying that the map shows the correct, or nearer the correct location than recent indications would have us believe.
My own observations concerning the murder site are not taken from this map, but the culmination of thought followed by work at the public records office.
Concerning the earlier posts about education, I don't claim to be clever, in fact as I mentioned before, I left school at 15 with a fifty yard swimming certificate. I did not go to university until I was 30. But by the time I had left the university all the tutors agreed that if I had stayed on at school and worked very hard, by now I could probably have my hundred yards!
Best wishes ED |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 02:00 pm | | | I have a more serious subject! How do people get those bloody smiley things into their posts, I have been trying for weeks! ED. |
|
|
|
|
