No announcement yet.

Bucks Row Project

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Bucks Row Project part 2 post 9 -Purkiss

    Purkiss lived directly opposite the murder site and his evidence could be interesting, however for the most part it appears npot to be

    reports 1-3 are apparently based on quotes and interviews condiucted by the press

    they say that the family heard nothing, report 3 gives more details, the wife was unwell, they both woke often during the night, considered it to be very quiet and the qwatchman above them also heard nothing.

    The inqurest reports give a little more info

    repoerts 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 say he was woken by the police, reports 5,7,8,9 & 10 say he was probaberly asleep before this for some time.

    Reports 5 & 10 say the wife awake for an hour before, 11 say most of night yet heard nothing, not even Paul and lehmere talking outside.

    This really does call the relaibilty of this into question the same with comments about unusyually quiet, if they are askleep how can they say

    reports 7,8,9 & 11
    say when he was called there were people there, report 9 says 3-4 constables, this would mean he is knock up much later than sum assume for the numbers to be correct, assume kirby is one, thain another but says men already there . Who were they? It is suggested in part 2 post 4 they could be from knocking up, but this seems to be refutrd here by purkiss which takes us back to the slaughter men and thain.


    • #47
      Bucks Row Project part 2 post 10 - Mulshaw

      p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120%; } Lets look at Mulshaw, firstly he did a 13 hour shrift, that is very long, starting at 5pm and finishing at 6am, it would therefore not be surprising if he did fall asleep at some stage which he freely admits.

      His positioning is interesting he say he is about 50 yards from the slaughter house in Reports 3 & 4
      yet in report 5 says 70 yards

      He also gives a straight line distance from the murder site to his location

      In report 1 this is given as 70 yards yet in report 2 as 30 yards.
      It is interesting that 70 appears more than once and maybe there was some confusing and misreporting. 30 yards seems to fit and we can see this in figure (1) below..

      'Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland'

      A = 30 yards distance to possible site of Mulshaw. B= 50 yards from Slaughter house to possible site of Mulshaw.

      It is obvious from his replies that he slept at times Reports : 1,2,3,4,5, & 7.

      Reports 3 & 4 say that when directly asked if he was asleep between 3-4, he replied:

      I don t think so”,

      while Report 7 says :

      he did not think he slept between 3-4”

      Reports 5 and 6 say he was not asleep during 3-4, however no direct quote is given and this could be taken from his “i don’t think so” comment.
      Of more interest is his response to the following question :

      The Coroner. -- Would you have heard any cry from where the woman lay?
      Witness: I can't say that I should”. Carried in Reports 3 & 4.

      Report 5 gives a slightly different account, and appears to be at odds with the above 2, however “might” could be seen as similar to “I cant say that I should”.

      By the CORONER. - If any one had called out for assistance from the spot where the body was he might have heard it. Nothing suspicious occurred during the time he was watching, and he saw no person running away. “

      Report 6 says but did not see anyone about at that time, nor did he hear any cries for assistance, or any other noise, while Report 7 merely says he saw nobody about and heard no noise.

      In all it seems he was not sure he would have heard anything, and that he may have been dozing for much of the night.

      His comments on the police are interesting, he should over a 13 hour period have seen a policeman 26 times, however he claims he only saw an officer every two hours Reports 3 & 4 .
      Reports 3, 4 and 5 all say police were not around often and that he only saw two that night, one being identified at Neil, but Mulshaw had no idea when he had seen him.

      This raises several questions

      1. Was Mulshaw asleep and so missed the police patrols?

      Very possibly

      2. Alternatively knowing there was a watchman at the western end of Winthrop street did police cut that part of the beat on a regular basis, it is certainly possible.

      In his recent publication, “Ripper Confidential”, Tom Westcott suggests that Mulshaw is talking about the how often he generally saw police, not just on the 31st..
      This is an interesting idea, and should not be discarded lightly, we will need to look at it in greater depth in part 3

      3. Who was the other police officer?

      It could be the PC on duty before Neil, which seems most likely, or it could be Thain, less likely but by no means impossible, given that at some stage it seems Thain did go to the slaughter house to collect his cape, or some other unknown policeman. I will discuss this issue in Part 3 in more depth.

      He also claims he was approached by a stranger who tells him there has been a murder in Bucks row. Reports 3 & 4 suggest this occurred at 4.40 and that Mulshaw saw Dr Llewellyn, this seems too late given the doctors testimony.

      Report 6 again say 4.40, for the time the man speaks to Mulshaw but gives no other details
      In report 5 no time is given, and 3 or 4 policeman are reported present at the site along with 5 or 6 working men.

      This incident may well relate to the man seen passing down Bucks Row who was neither stopped or identified.
      Others have suggested that this many was one of the slaughter men, if so and Mulshaw did not recognise him as one men who worked close by, and whom he should have seen regularly, it calls the reliability of his testimony into serious question.

      Over all the reports suggest a man who did not pay too much attention to what was going on around him, and more to his long hours, poor pay and heating report 1 & 2.

      There is a leaning in the reports that he is unsure about much, and there must be considerable issues with the reliability of his testimony.


      • #48
        Bucks Row Project part 2 post 11 - Lilley

        The reports on the statement of Harriet lilley are intriguing, but ultimately unrewarding.

        She claims she was awake and heard a series of noises, a painful moan and several faint gasps (the attack?). she also say she heard whispers and distinct voices (Paul and Lechmere?).

        The interesting point is she claimed to hear a train passing at the same time, however it is not clear if the whispers are after or before the train.

        The only train it could reasonably be is the 3.07 from New Cross.
        The time of 3.07 from New Cross allows us to check, but poster drstrange169 (dusty miller) has pointed out the company, Eastern Railway were notoriously bad for sticking to time tables.
        However by checking the 1906 Bradshaws, (only copy I could find for the period), it was possible to estimate that the train should have arrived 14-16 minutes after departure, that is 3.21-3.22, however being a goods train it may have moved slower and so 3.25-3.30 seems most likely, but given Dusty’s comments it does not really help.

        It has also been suggested that her report is so far after the the event it my not be reliable, and while this may indeed be true to an extent, Mrs Green and others did not give evidence until 17th so such an argument is not 100% convincing.

        IF and it is a big IF Lilley is correct, then the timing of the attack may be closer to 3.30 than 3.45

        However it must also be admitted Lilley was not called to give evidence at the inquest.

        The reliability of the reports is open to some question at present and more research is need on lilley before her statements can be useful.


        • #49
          Bucks Row Project part 2 post 12a - Walker, Nichols, Monk, Eade & Holland


          • #50
            Bucks Row Project part 2 post 12a - Walker, Nichols, Monk, Eade & Holland

            I have combined a group of witnesses here, while their testimony gives background on the events in Bucks Row that night, it gives little in the way of evidence to what occurred,

            Walker, Nichols and Monk therefore are included but no assessment is made of their testimony given that such does not directly relate to Bucks Row on the 31st. They are included for completeness of the records

            Eade’s account while initially of some interest, appears to be explained away by the Police, at least to the satisfaction of Mr Baxter,

            This leaves us with Holland or as some report Oram.

            Her testimony allows us to at least draw a possible view of Nichols some 60-105 minutes before she is found dead. (most reports say 2.30, but report 8 says 2am )

            Reports 6-10 state she was drunk and alone, she had spent her doss money several times over, would not go with Holland and would continue to search for money to pay for her bed.
            Holland of course says she has no idea how Nichols gets money.

            The meeting occurred at corner of Osborne Street and Whitechapel Road, according to report 8 the exchange took some 7-8 minutes, this may not be reliable given the report is the only one to give the time of the meeting as 2 rather than 2.30. at best I suggest it points to the meeting being more than just a brief exchange.
            After which Nichols continued on along Whitechapel Road, and that is all.


            • #51
              Bucks Row Project part 2 post 13 - Mortuary

              Mann says he arrived at the Mortuary at about 5am. (Report: 1 & 3.), he also says that after body was taken inside he locked mortuary and went for breakfast (Reports: 3,1.) this obviously cannot have happened until sometime after 5.30 as both Llewellyn and spratling say an examination was carried out soon after 5.30 am, after Spratling found and notified Notified the Doctor of the abdominal wounds. Mann therefore must have locked up around 6am.

              Hatfield arrived later, at about 6.30, did he go and have breakfast with Mann or was the mortuary open again by this time, there is unfortunatly no data to help with this question. (Reports: 1 & 3.).

              Mann then says the body was not undressed until after breakfast ( Reports: 1, 2, 3 & 6).

              We know that Helson did not arrive until sometime after 8, but before 9am, that leaves a long gap, and it seems possible that the two attendants at least started to undress without authority.

              Mann says Helson was not present when the body of Nichols was undressed (Reports: 1, 2 & 6).
              In Report 3 he initially said Helson was not present, but under further questioning from Baxter, Mann finally he replies he could not say if present or not.

              Hatfield also says that no one was present when they undressed the body. (Reports: 1 & 3). While in Reports 2 & 6 he says they “were quite alone”

              Further to this point Mann says they received no instructions in Report 7, while Hatfield says the same in Reports 1 & 3.
              There is also confusing over whether a doctor was arriving: Hatfield saying he had been told so in Reports 1 & 3, whilst Mann says he was not aware of it in Report 7.

              One point Mann seems clear on is that the clothing was not torn or cut before they began the removal process ( Reports: 1 & 3).

              However there is considerable confusion over the removal of the clothing:

              In report 1 we are told the clothing is cut, and later that it is torn to remove it,
              Reports 2 & 6 say it was cut and torn to remove.
              Report 3 says just cut in the part by Mann, yet the part by Hatfield says cut and torn.
              Report 7 just says cut.
              And Reports 4 & 5 say just the dress was cut.

              Overall not terribly informative or reliable.
              One really to ask if the police were indeed present would such have been allowed and would they not have recorded details of the removal?

              There are then conflicts over if the victim was wearing stays or not, inexplicably Reports 1, 2 & 6 say Not! Reports 4 and 5 say not sure.

              However has a juror points out, somewhat unhappily, Hatfield joked about with said stays when the juror visited the mortuary. Hatfield obviously embarrassed said he did not recall this.

              It seems clear that Hatfield took part in what we would consider inappropriate behaviour. ( Reports : 1, 2, 3 & 6)
              This really says much about the attitude of the mortuary staff, far more than the claim of fits does by Baxter.

              Mann could not remember where blood was on the clothing, (Reports 1 & 3), And it seems upon removal, the clothing was just dumped on the floor, allowing possible cross contamination of items with blood. ( Reports: 1 & 3).

              We then reach one of the few firm pieces of information, the Lambeth Workhouse label was removed from the clothing by Hatfield on the direct instruction of Helson; but this was after the clothing had been removed, and we do not know how long after.

              The testimony is very patchy and shows two old poorly educated men, performing menial duties.
              One has to say that there is much unreliability in the testimonies, However to blame that on fits has Baxter did was wrong.

              Even although it appears very unreliable it gives us some valuable data:

              The cloths were just dumped on floor, allowing for possible cross contamination.

              Helson was present to give instruction to remove the Lambeth Workhouse label, so it seems odd that they would acknowledge this, yet deny he was present when they began to undress Nichols.

              That Mann did not recall the blood on the clothing is a shame, as there is some question over what Spratling saw: He may not have looked at the back of the clothing (Spratling Table, report 3) he says he did not notice any on back, which can have several interpretations yet in report 6 of the same tablethe report is different, which may be due to those interpretations or not.

              We will look at this more fully on Spratling Table post.

              While at this point, it is on balance, probable that Helson was present for the whole of the undressing of Nichols, the possibility that he was not cannot be conclusively ruled out. We will need to look carefully at what Baxter says himself on the subject and any comments from senior Police Officer later in part 2, and again in greater detail in part 3 before we can reach a definitive conclusion.


              • #52
                Bucks Row Project part 2 post 14 - Helson

                Lets now look at Inspector Helson.

                For the first time we get to look at official documents, rather than press reports. It is only a single report from Helson dated 7th September, ( Report 11) and I shall look at this first.

                It begins by giving some background information on Nichols and then states that the post mortem confirms that the murder took place at the site body was found.
                It makes it clear that local watchmen have been spoken to as well as police on adjoining beats (Thain and Mizen plus possibly the beat directly to the north of Thomas street and maybe even the officer on the Southern side of Whitechapel road. ) and nothing has come to light.

                He then gives a good timetable of Nichols known placements before her death, it then discussed Pizer but admits nothing on him and finishes by mentioning Abberline.

                After my big build up it really gives little information, but what is does give should be considered more reliable than the press.

                We now revert to the press reports of the inquest

                The first question is the time he arrives at the mortuary?
                The second is he present when Nichols is undressed?

                First question, we do not know the exact time he arrived, but Report 3 says slightly after 8, Reports 4 & 5 say between 8-9am.

                He says he was informed at 6.45 or a quarter to seven in all reports except Report 11(police report ) & 10 which is short and gives few details.

                Reports 2, 7 & 8 say he was informed of the murder at home, he then goes to Bethnal Green Police Station to get the full details, before proceeding to the Mortuary.

                Reports 1 & 3 , do not mention his being at home, but confirm that he first went to Bethnal Green Police Station before proceeding to the Mortuary.

                The majority of reports do not include the information about going to Bethnal Green, but just say he went to the mortuary. (Reports:4, 5, 6 ,9(but they imply he may have been to the station first), 13, 12, 14 & 15.).

                Does this fit with undressing details as reported by Mann and Hatfield?
                We will also need to check with Spratling and Llewellyn.

                Llewellyn is clear he is informed of the other injuries ( The ones he missed!) at approximately 5.30 and headed to the mortuary at once, it appears he carried out a fuller check than in Bucks Row, but not a full Post mortem at this stage, without removing the clothing, instead one assumes just lifting it up and back over the torso.

                Spratling says he sent for doctor at about 5.30am, while these times may not marry up exactly they are close enough to suggest Llewellyn was on site well before 6am.

                The Mortuary staff say they opened up at about 5, the body was moved into the mortuary from the yard, and at this point Spratling noticed the Abdominal wounds.

                All of which seems to fit together fairly well.

                The Mortuary staff (Robert Mann), says that breakfast was taken before the body was undressed.

                One point to note, Mann does not say how long after breakfast they started undressing, Hatfield arrived at 6.30 and so maybe he and Mann at breakfast then, surely there must have been a gap of upto an hour after this, if Helson was present when they started to undress Nichols..

                What does Helson say himself?

                He says she was fully dressed when he arrived and he was present when the clothing was remove. (Reports: 1, 4, 9 & 12.).
                In other reports he is simply recorded as saying that she was fully clothed, not that he was there when she was undressed. ( Reports 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14 &15).
                While one report does not explicitly say so but implies such ( Report 10).

                There are some minor discrepancies over her clothing and which buttons are undone from Helson

                Report 2, 3 & 10 say 5 buttons done up on ulster whilst 2 or 3 undone on dress.

                Report 5 just says 2-3 undone on dress.

                Report 6 is vague and just says a few.

                Reports 7 & 8 are different and say on the dress/bodice about 4 button undone

                Reports 1, 9, & 12 say buttoned up down to middle.

                Reports 13, 14, & 15 says with exception of 2 or 3 was buttoned up.

                Not 100% agreement but not likely to be important, just demonstrating how reports differ and make mistakes.

                We can now look at blood on clothing this will need to be compared to the comments of Spratling, Thain, Green et al in part 3.

                There was blood in the Hair ( Reports: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 13, 14 & 15), however such is not mentioned in some Reports: 4, 7, 8, 9 &12.

                Report 1 says no blood on petticoats or lower part of ulster, but back of bodice and top of ulster had adsorbed good deal.

                Report 2 says blood on chemise at back and some on front, however no blood on petticoats, dress or Ulster, however it says :

                The only part of her garments saturated with blood was the back of the neck of the dress and ulster, which had absorbed a great deal of blood Between the drum and the ulster there was clotted blood, and the hair at the back of the head was clotted with blood.”

                Drum would appear to be a typo for dress, therefore there was clotted blood in this area.

                Report 3 says blood on chemise and also on abdomen. And that there was much on clothing behind neck, and it had absorbed great deal.

                Report 4 says no blood on seat of ulster or petticoats, but near neck bodice was saturated.

                Reports 5 & 6 say about collars of dress and ulster, but none on back of dress.

                Reports 7 & 8 say no blood on petticoats, however the back of dress around shoulders was soaked, the Ulster was also saturated and there was clotted blood between it and dress.

                Reports13, 14 & 15 report blood about neck, on the dress collar and ulster but none on back of skirts.

                Report 10 says only part saturated was back of the dress near the neck, no comment on Ulster.

                Reports 9 & 12 make no comments on the blood and clothing at all.

                The reports are unfortunately not fully consistent, they do however allow for a broad picture to be drawn. We can say that there appears to be no blood on the lower garments, such as petticoats, nor on the lower parts of the Ulster, nor dress, but it is unclear how far the blood does stretch.
                The description “seat of ulster” is used, one assumes this, the part of the coat one would sit on, that is around the buttocks. So not as far has that, but its unfortunately no clearer.

                The areas of clothing round the neck are saturated, this is supported by the reports which mention amounts of clotted blood between the dress and the Ulster, obviously both had absorbed so much blood, that blood sat on the material and clotted there.

                One last possibility which we must at least note, if Helson was not present when the clothing was removed, his description can only be of clothing after it had been discarded, or he took it from an earlier witness, possibly Spratling.

                However one must say such is not supported at all and very unlikely.

                We now move on to the wounds and descriptions of the body.

                The body had not been recently washed (Reports 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 & 10.).

                There are reports of bruising to face and jaw (Reports:1, 3, 4, 7 & 8.).

                The abdominal wounds are visible with the stays on (Reports : 1, 3 & 9.).

                The wounds could have been done without removal of the stays (Reports: 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 & 14.).

                No Clothing had been cut by the killer (Reports: 2, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14 & 15.).

                There was no sign of a struggle struggle, no marks on arms (Reports: 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 or 15.).

                There was no sign that any rings had been removed (Reports: 7 & 8); despite stories in press to the contrary.

                We can now look at his reports for the area of the murder:

                There was no blood on gate or pavement in Bucks Row. (Reports: 1, 3, 4, 7 & 8).

                There was only one spot which might be blood in Brady Street (Reports: 1,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14 & 15).

                He believed took the attack took place on spot (Reports:1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 &15.).

                When asked about the apparently small amount of blood from the wounds, he comments that the blood from the abdominal wounds, seems to have flowed INTO body. (Reports: 1, 3 & 4). On the issue of that from the neck, he mentions it just once, and he seems very clear. (Report 3.)

                He clearly states however that he did not visit the area until after the was blood washed away, which will have a great effect on what he reported. (Reports: 1, 3, 9 & 12.).

                The comments about the clothing not being disarrange are really of little use, has he did not see body at scene.


                • #53
                  Bucks Row Project part 2 post 15 - The Slaughter House Men


                  • #54
                    Bucks Row Project part 2 post 15a - The Slaughter House Men

                    We now turn to the question of the Slaughter men from Winthrop street and the some what confusing tale they tell.

                    We have inquest testimony from only one of the 3 men, Henry Tomkins, and an interview from James Mumford the most senior of the 3 men.

                    It is of some interest that Tomkins was the man called to the inquest, did the police just pick one of the 3? Did he volunteer? or was he put forward by the other two? We do not know the answer, it would be enlightening maybe.
                    Mumford being the most senior would have been the obvious choice, Tomkins an odd one, as he was the most inexperienced, and the newest having only recently arrived in London from Manchester.

                    I shall discuss this more in part 3.

                    I shall look at Mumford’s interview first (Report 7), obviously he is not under oath, however in the circumstances he may actually be more forthcoming.
                    The Slaughter men had obviously been accused of being involved in the murders, this is backed by the writing on the gates of the yard, which Mumford talks of and press reports such as the Echo 4th September (press table report # 20), that say the police are looking at more than one suspect and expect another person not directly involved to make a confession soon, the slaughter men are not named, but it clear they are being targeted.

                    The first point of note is the time Mumford says the work hours, 8.15 until 6 or 6.30. this we will later compare to the times given by Tomkins. It should of course be noted that he says these are his working hours, maybe the other two worked shorter hours and Mumford waited on his own for the arrival of the boss.

                    It is clear from the interview that Mumford is very angry they are being targeted, and appears to be very open with the interviewer whom he believes is going to giving a fair picture; However it is also clear from the questions asked such as :

                    "Do they take their knives with them?"

                    And comments such as

                    "No one, of course, even hints anything against you men," remarked the interviewer ;

                    when the Echo itself on the same day publishes Report # 20 in press table, that this is not the case and the interviewer is attempting to trip Mumford up.

                    He says that he remained behind for 10 minutes, after they were informed of the murder and that it was Tomkins and Britton who went to see body first not him, this is has we shall see at odds with the statements of Tomkins; one is left to wonder why?
                    We shall return to this later and discuss it more fully in part 3.

                    Mumford then asks why the local lodging houses have not been checked, he says there are 5 or 6 in the area, on the surface that seems a clear question.
                    However one cannot but help remembering Mrs Greens comments about “disorderly houses,” and her knowing of none in the area and one is left to wonder if “lodging houses” may not be just lodging houses?
                    However there are no sources to support this, other than question by a juror to Mrs Green that there were there were several disorderly houses in nearby Thomas street, and so we can explore that possibility no further.

                    Lets us now look at the testimony of Tomkins, he comes across as a poorly educated man, and without doubt a misogynist, we shall return here later.

                    Firstly he says that he normally finished about 4am, Report 2.

                    Mr Baxter questions this as he believed they were supposed to work until 6 ( Report: 6, 8, 14, 15 & 16.).
                    In Report 5 the actual question asked by Baxter is not given, however from the answer it is clear he is again asking about the finishing time.

                    Tomkins replies to Baxter, that they work until the work is done, and then leave. (Reports 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15 & 16.)

                    He says he was informed of the murder by a police man at about 4.15am and that he and Mumford went first and were later followed Britton. (Reports 2, 3, 5, 11 & 13.).

                    Reports 4, 9, 7 & 10 just says two went initially and were followed some time after by third man; however no names are given.

                    Report 1 seems to say all 3 went, it gives no break in the times they attend, of course it may just be badly written being at odds with the rest of the reports.

                    Interestingly in report 3 Tomkins says they he went back to Bucks Row with PC Thain.

                    Lets briefly look at these statements.

                    The claim that they left work when completed appears to be contrary to that of Mumford interview (Report 7), however it is possible he remained himself until the official time while the other two left, in return he may have had other rewards.

                    It seems that the working hours were very lax indeed, there was along break about 12.20 and apparently only two of the 3 took it, one having to remain on-site at all times, and this may be the clue to much of what is said, the need to not let the employers know the building was left unattended at times.
                    According to Mumford the governor did not arrive until 6 or 6 30 report 7, so there was plenty of leeway for finishing early, or maybe starting late or taking extra breaks.

                    It is very odd that there is a disagreement over who actually went first to Bucks Row, this may just be that all 3 went, and they did not get their stories sorted.
                    Swanson in his report (police table, Report 11) says they were interviewed separately and could not communicate, however he does not say when this occurred.

                    With regards to the comment he left with Thain, while possible, it means Thain remains at the slaughter house for up to 5 minutes, if Tomkins is telling the truth about the time Thain appeared and the time he, Tomkins, left. It seems unlikely.

                    Let us look at several other issues.

                    1. Tomkins comes across as a clear misogynist, (Reports 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15 & 16); but is this actually the case?

                    Is he talking about women in general or just prostitutes? It is a real possibility given the questions asked by Baxter:

                    I suppose people do come and look you up? “

                    And the follow up

                    Were there any women about?”

                    it is very possible that Baxter is trying too see if the unfortunates used the yard at all.

                    Tomkins indeed makes a very big thing about his dislike of women, almost he complains too much, one wonders if he is trying to stop any suggestions of visits, or maybe even use of the yard. One must admit there is nothing to support any such idea.

                    However it is of interest when looking at the above, that Reports 11 & 13 says women came to yard at times, One wonders what for, and how often?

                    Tom Wescott in his recent book quotes a letter from a Col Fraser, dated Oct 3 stating one of the 3 slaughter men is known to hate women, however this may be taken from the inquest reports rather than local knowledge or opinion.

                    2. None of the slaughter men saw or heard anyone from 1am until Thain arrived at 4.15.(Reports: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16.).

                    Tomkins only says Thain came to collect his cape when he is pressed by Baxter, he does not volunteer the information, (Reports 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 & 16.).
                    Report 4 adds some information by saying that Thain left it because it was a fine night, however there is no comment of when this was done.

                    There are 2 major issues here, if the only person seen was Thain at 4.15 to collect his cape, how did the cape get there?
                    If the Tomkins is telling the truth it must have been left before 1am.
                    Why did Baxter not ask for clarification? It may be that he was by that stage frustrated by Tomkins already somewhat evasive answers and it slipped, or he did ask and the question and answer was not recorded by any of the attending press, or he did not want to ask the question.

                    The second issue is that the reports above are contrary to the claims of PC Neil (Neil Table Reports 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12. ) that he saw them between 3.15-3.20, it is of course possible they did not see him, but it seems unlikely.

                    3. The reports including Mumford’s interview make it very clear that the yard was too far away from the murder site to have heard any screams.

                    Let us now return to the issue of the slaughter men going to Bucks Row, there is no mention of seeing Mulshaw, although some have suggested the man who spoke to him may have been Britton. However there is little to support this idea other than he apparently stayed behind according to Tomkins and arrived later, it could equally have been the unnamed man whom Neil saw walking down Bucks Row after Llewellyn arrived.

                    At first when asked by Mr Baxter about who was already on site, he appears to be very evasive about the reported ordinary men seen there. This includes not being precise and vague in replying and even claiming he cannot read, and exposing himself to some ridicule. (Reports 2, 5, 6, 8, 14 & 16.). In Report 5, he claims he was in “a hurry” this appears no where else and could be misreporting, however if it is not, why does he linger at the murder site?

                    In report 2 Report Mr Baxter asks a specific question, which is not reported elsewhere?

                    "Are you sure there were not three people there?" asked the Coroner.

                    Why 3 ?

                    It is true mr Purkiss says 2 or 3 ( Purkis table report 7, 8 & 9. ) however he does not give his testimony until 17th September.

                    Eventually Baxter gets the following information form Tomkins:

                    When he arrived in Bucks Row:

                    He saw 3-4 policemen, (Reports: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15 & 16); however in Reports 9 & 10, he says there was also a sergeant present.

                    He says the Doctor was present.(Reports: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 & 16)

                    And finally he agrees 2 men were there. (Reports: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14 & 16.).

                    The police and the doctor can be accounted for, but who were the men?

                    Neil claimed that the slaughter men were the first to arrive, (Neiltablereports 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 &12. however in report 2 of the same table these two men are two who had been knocked up in the immediate vicinity of the murder site. This has lead me to ask could they be Purkiss and Green?

                    However Purkiss clearly refutes this, when he talks of 2 OR 3 men being there when he looks. It should also be noted that Purkiss does not say if he recognises any of these men or not.

                    So if not he who else?
                    Of those we know who the police claim were knocked up, and we are left with only Green, Lilley and possibly the watchman in Schneider's factory. So could they be these 3 unknown men?

                    If not then who?

                    Tomkins says did not know the men, however Britton lived at 25 Bucks Row, less than 2 minutes from the murder site, surely he would know local men, at least by sight, it seems strange that he did not say anything to Tomkins regarding them before the inquest..

                    Finally he says they stayed until the body was removed, by which time there was a crowd of 10-12 persons, this fits with Llewellyn’s comments .
                    (Llewellyn table, Report 5.

                    This may suggest a wait of a few minutes at least(Reports: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16). However judging by comments that crowd had grown it maybe considerably longer. (Reports: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 14, 15 & 16).

                    One must note however that Neil says that the slaughter men arrive as body is about to go on ambulance and were first general pubic to arrive apart from man who passed unknown. It does not ring true. (Neil table, Reports 2 & 8. )

                    Tomkins also say he heard no cart in the area. (Reports: 3, 5, 6, 8, 14, 15 & 16).

                    Swanson in his official report October 19th (Police Table, Report 11.) says there is no evidence against the men at all.

                    The whole behaviour is very odd to say the least, there are without doubt lies told and truths withheld. There are hints of what may have happened, involving various loyalties, and disloyalties and of course Thain’s cape.

                    I shall discuss these at far great depth with possible solutions at part 3.


                    • #55
                      Bucks Row Project part 2 post 16 - Spratling


                      • #56
                        Bucks Row Project part 2 post 16a - Spratling


                        • #57
                          Bucks Row Project Part 2 post 16b - Spratling

                          We now move to Inspector Spratling, a few of the comments by Spratling given at the inquest on the 17th September do not appear on this table, but on the Police Table, the reason for this being that those comments appear as a series of comments to various officers.

                          We start with another Official Police Report, dated 31st August and this is Spratling’s initial report of the murder and the examination by Dr Llewellyn.

                          The first point is the description of the finding of the body by Neil, and that he gained the assistance of Mizen and Thain and that Dr Llewellyn arrived at the scene and made his initial examination.

                          There is no mention of the Mizen/Lechmere exchange or any indication that Neil was told of such. However this is a very early report and such may not have been reported at this stage, or indeed not included by Spratling.

                          Spratling then mentions he saw the abdominal wounds and informed Llewellyn.
                          Spratling then records the findings of the examinations by Llewellyn.
                          Two cuts to neck, vertebrae cut through he says:
                          The windp[ipe] gullet and spinal cord being cut through, “
                          while this is obviously true for the windpipe it is a mistake for the spinal cord as recorded by Llewellyn in both his early statements and inquest testimony (Llewellyn table, Report 5.
                          There are mentions of bruising to face and jaw and also of the abdominal wounds, there is mention on only one area of internal damage, several cuts to the Omentum, and 2 small stabs on privates. He also reports Llewellyn is of the opinion that the killer is left handed.
                          The whole section of report is very poorly punctuated, and it finishes by saying “death was almost instantaneous”, it is really not clear which of the wounds this comment applies to due to this lack of punctuation.
                          There follows a description of the the body but not of any blood on the clothing, which is a shame.
                          We finish with comments about Purkiss and Green plus a William Court(night watchman) another possible candidate for the men seen by Purkiss? He also mentions PC 81G.e.R
                          No one heard anything and confirms that Neil and Kirby passed Bucks Row at approx 3.15.
                          We now move onto the press reports of the inquest, these are numerous, often with mistakes and contradictions and analysis of this is somewhat difficult.
                          First point is however rather clear, Spratling says in was informed of the murder at about 4.30 in Hackney Road.
                          (Reports: 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14 & 15.), Reports: 3,10 & 12 leave out the information on the location but confirm the time. Report 4 has a typo and says 1.30!
                          He then says he goes to the murder site and meets 2 police officers (reports: 3, 10 & 12).
                          Other reports say one of these officers was PC Thain and that he and Thain went to the mortuary together (Reports: 2, 5, 6, 8, 11 &14). Reports 7, 9, 13 & 15 agree he met Thain but do not say that he went to the mortuary with him.
                          Two Reports 3 & 10 say that blood was being washed away at this point. I think it is more likely that this had just happened given the following information, which if the blood was still present would be somewhat superfluous.
                          All reports state blood staining was still visible if faint.
                          On arriving at the mortuary he found the body still on the ambulance (Reports: 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 14).
                          He carried took a brief description but noticed no wounds other than the neck (Reports: 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 14).
                          Only when the body was taken into the mortuary did he discover the full extent of the wounds (Reports: 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 14).
                          Report 4 only says he went and noticed the wounds.
                          Some reports give a limited description Reports 2, 3 & 5 say the bowels/intestines were exposed, while reports 2 & 5 also say the flesh was turned over from right to left. This suggests at the very least an attempt to form a flap, however we cannot be sure that this had not happened as a result of the movement of the body and the intestines moving forward and forcing the flesh to open.
                          This will be looked at in Part 3.
                          Comments are made about possible blood on the legs, Reports 2,3 & 5 saying no blood unless spot or so between groin and knees; while Reports 8 & 9 say none at all.
                          He comments that the skin is clean but does not appear to have been washed recently. (Reports: 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 & 15).
                          Spratling explains to Baxter that at this point he felt unwell in Reports 2 & 5.
                          Doctor Llewellyn arrives and carries out an examination (Reports: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 &14).
                          It seems this is of the abdomen only, this examination takes either 10-15 minutes (Reports: 6, 8, 9 &14) or just 10 minutes (Reports: 7 & 15).
                          That is where things start to become less clear.
                          Reports: 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 & 11 state that the body was stripped by 2 workhouse men, (Report 5 claims this was done to allow Llewellyn to conduct his examination, this is completely at odds with the accounts of Helson, Mann & Hatfield.).
                          Spratling states in Reports: 4, 6 & 14 he is not present when the body is stripped; however he is also reported as saying he saw 2 men stripping the body. (Reports: 10, 12,). The last reports are of course contrary to the reports of inspector Helson (Helson Table Reports :1-9, 12-15)
                          Spratling says he gave no instructions to undress the body(Reports: 8, 9 & 11), while in the Police section, he says he gave implicit instruction not to touch the body (Police Table reports 1 & 3), there is a difference and one is left to wonder why the stronger statement comes so late.
                          This becomes even more confusing when we see that sergeant Enright gives evidence at the same time as Spratling, literally jumping in or so it seems.
                          Enright says he gave instruction not to touch the body (Reports: 10, 12, 14 & 15 ).
                          Enright gives description of clothing in yard and of the workhouse label being cut out Report 15, which appears the same as that given by Spratling, one asks is there confusion who says what?
                          One assumes Enright arrived with the ambulance, and one wonders also if his name gets muddled when Spratling later talks of sending constable Cartwright to Bucks Row.
                          Mr Baxter now makes a series of comments which seem to say several things:
                          Officials should have been present to record condition of clothing. (Reports: 2, 3, 11 &15).
                          Needs to know position of clothing. (Reports: 8, 9, 14 & 15).
                          The condition of the clothing is important. ( Reports:10,12,15)
                          Baxter says that the men who removed the clothing need to be present, Report 5.
                          Returning to Spratling, he says when next he went to the mortuary the body was already stripped. (Reports: 2, 5 & 6).
                          This was around Noon,(Reports: 6, 8, 9, 13 &14) and that the clothing was in a heap in the yard (Reports: 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13 & 14), and is the same as Enright is reported as giving in Report 15.
                          There is a description of the clothing including the workhouse name being removed (Reports: 8,9, 13 & 14).
                          In most reports Spratling is not sure of condition of clothing and if fastened or not. In Reports 2 & 5 he says that he cannot say if stays are damaged or not.
                          Baxter has questions, were the cloths fastened correctly? (Reports: 8 & 9). Were the stays damaged? (Reports 2 & 3)
                          Spratling being unable to answer, a PC is sent to get the clothing (Reports: 2 & 11), apparently on the suggestion of Abberline (Reports: 7 & 15).
                          We now have a description of the blood on the clothing, one has to say it is not consistent.
                          Sprating says that Inspector Helson can tell more information on this, However Spratling noticed blood on the back dress (Reports: 8 & 9); However this is contradicted in reports 6 & 14 when he says there was no blood on back of dress or Ulster.
                          Report 3 just says he did not notice.
                          He is reported as seeing no blood on the petticoats (Reports 2,3 & 5).
                          Reports 2 & 3 say some on the chest part of dress, and some on front of chemise.
                          Report 5 says a little blood on the chemise.
                          Report 4 says some on breast part of dress. And on chemise and ulster, but noticed no other.
                          Report 15 says little on under linen.
                          There is blood on upper part of dress and clock (Ulster) (Reports: 3, 6, 14 & 15.).
                          There is some suggestion that some of this to the front of clothing is from direct contact with the abdominal wounds, Report 2.
                          There is some debate over if the stays were covering the wounds, if they were in place or if they were damaged.
                          Spratling then talks about the examination of the crime scene, this again is confusing, and it seems clear that Spratling is somewhat less concerned about blood stains than he is about finding a weapon.
                          In Reports 3 & 11 he says Thain was sent between 5-6am to Bucks Row, in Reports 10 & 12 a time is not stated.
                          In Reports 6 & 14 its a constable Cartwright is sent, who is this man who seems to be taking the place of Thain? Is there a confusion over names with Enright?
                          Something here must be wrong with the reporting!
                          It seems clearer when he goes with Godley, some Reports: 3, 6 , 8 & 9 say between 11-12 while other Reports: 10, 12 & 14 do not give a time. However he reports no weapon was found(Reports: 2, 3, 4, 9 & 11) while other reports say nothing was found (Reports: 10, 12, 14 & 15).,
                          Mr Baxter is more concerned about blood and tells Spratling this, Spratling in response confirms he found nothing, Knife, blood or any marks. (Reports: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 & 15).
                          He confirms the blood was washed away by an employee of Mr Brown, James Green. (Reports:2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 & 14).
                          Spratling visited half dozen people and none heard anything Report 15. These include Mrs Purkiss pacing her room (Reports: 3,10 & 12 or simply awake (Reports: 6,14 & 15) and fits with her inquest testimony.
                          Mrs Green is claimed to be up at various times from 3am until 4,30, this is at odds with her inquest testimony (link to chart)
                          there maybe some confusing in the reporting with regards to Purkiss and Green.
                          Spratling then says another constable was near by at times during the night in Brady Street-PC Thain. However 2 typos say Broad street and Praed street, rather than Brady street..
                          Finally in Reports 2 & 11, Spratling claims that Neil’s beat took about 20 minutes, this is contrary to Neil’s own statements. And we will need to look at this further in Part 3 when looking at the beats of Police officers.
                          Overall the press reports are less than a shining example, there are many contradictions and some obvious mistakes, we will need to be carefully for instance when looking at blood on the clothing in Part 3.


                          • #58
                            Thats all for today

                            The last 3 sections to follow tomorrow



                            • #59
                              Excellent !
                              Thanks again Steve
                              To Join JTR Forums :
                              Contact [email protected]


                              • #60
                                Bucks Row Project part 2 post 17 - Police