What Police Constable John Neil Saw In Buck's Row.
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 04. 2024
- In this video, we head back to the early hours of August the 31st 1888, when Police Constable John Neil, whilst walking his beat along Buck's Row, in Whitechapel, discovered the body of Jack the Ripper's first victim, Mary Nichols.
Although we now know that her body was, in fact, discovered by Charles Cross, at the time it was believed that the find had been made by PC Neil.
As a result, he was one of the witnesses called on the first day of the inquest (Saturday the 1st of September, 1888) to give evidence as to the finding of the body.
The video features a full account of his inquest testimony as to what he saw in Buck's Row that morning.
I look forward to these videos on Sunday, so thank you.
"The street is unrecognisable today," Like all of London.
For the worse .
@@jonfranklin4999Things were so much better then, what with the polio, grinding poverty, rickets, TB, smallpox and workhouses.
@tatata1543
You forgot horse manure all over the streets too.
@@tatata1543 One or two of these appear to be making a comeback
For me it's all about the actual location of the crimes. As a American I've never been to London. I have no Idea what's changed ,so that would never enter my mind. History never changes, in the Battle of Britain the East end docks and Whitechapel were bombed endlessly and no amount of rebuilding will change the fact that the Battle of Britain was fought in it's skys . So for me it's the location and The vibes it gives off.
I find the fact that she was touching the gate truly disturbing as it suggests that she was still alive when the killer left her.
She was strangled to death , then likely placed down on her back , the arm stretched out hitting the gate may just be accidental .
This is superb..exellent research and detail.
Fantastic as usual.
Note that part of the wall of the old stable yard is still extant.
Extant?
@@schizoidman601 the opposite of extinct.
The curve of the kerb that led into the gateway has been kept in the new block paving that has been laid. So, you can still get an excellent suggestion of where her body was lay.
The body was warm and the blood was oseing.A massive clue
Great recount, Richard. Your videoes are always enjoyable to watch.
Great video. Thanks for sharing.
Thank you for this Richard, will watch tonight 👍
If only the wall of the Board School in Durward Street can talk....!!!
Fascinating stuff! Many thanks :)
Very good. Thank you.
Always quality 👍🏻🇦🇺👍🏻
The key factor is the pooling of blood. with the injuries to the front of her body, and lying on her back, she could have been dead for at least thirty minutes before the officer arrived.
Ty for posting . Mo dilbar ynwa
Thank you so much 😊. Great History. Cheers 🍻 🇬🇧🏴🇺🇸
You could turn up the volume a little ✅😎🇬🇧
Interesting to see some of the errors in his testimony in regard to being the "first person" on site to discover her body. I wonder if he, by the time of that testimony, knew about the other two men? (A bit off topic, but I had to look up the script of the signage below Whitechapel Station. I thought it was Arabic at first glance, but it's actually Bengali in honour of the large Bangladeshi community in the area -- cool! )
yes that is interesting p c Neil would have known about the two men and who they were - ɓut he sticks to the script - he also says
" Anyone could have got away " well he is the only person who Has To admit he passed the place were Pollys body was found Twice - its really on Neil's words that doctors come to a reasonable T O D - imo you could suspect Neil Cross or R Paul but it's more likely her killer went off and onto the Whitechapel Road - however the lack of blood at the scene if a open road was where Polly Nicholls was murdered will keep people guessing - imo George Chapman is the likely escape as he was still known to be living at George Yard Buildings scene of Martha Tabrams murder .
It woudn' thave been down to Neil. The Detectives in chrage wouldn't have let him go up there and say that HE had found the body if the investigation as a whole knew otherwise. Either Abberline or Spratling or someone would have got up and told Baxter that there were two men being soiught out who had told another officer that they had found the body.
It does make you wonder why Mizen wouldn't have made it quite clear that he had been told by two witnesses that THEY had discovered a body.
He had a full day between the events in Bucks Row and the opening of the inquest to tell a superior officer what had happened.
Neil was obviously considered to BE the one who had discovered the body a full 24 hours after the body had been discovered. Otherwise the Detectives in charge would never have allowed him to go in front of Baxter first, and say that he was.
Unless Paul's description of Mizen being disinterested and continuing to "knock-up" was true, and because of that and the fact he hadn't even bothered to ask their names put Mizen in a bad light, and he just decided to keep his mouth shut and hope nothing more came of it... oops. Hence Mizen's tall tale of being told that another officer was there already... notice that no one questioned Cross when he flat out contradicted the PC and said in answer to the specific question that he had NOT told Mizen that another PC was there... because there wasn't another PC there!.
Baxter would have been furious to learn from the newspapers that the detectives didn't know that two men (neither of whom had appeared at the inquest on Saturday) had found the body when Neil gave testimony. He would have read about the inquest hearings practically alongside Robert Paul's story in the same issue of the Sunday paper.
Bollockings of a severe nature would have been handed out right, left and centre.
I was always curious about the lack of blood at some of the crime scenes
The victims were strangled first, meaning that there was no arterial spray. Furthermore, in this case, the victim had only very recently been murdered.
Of course, a lady in a nearby house almost certainly did hear the murder. I don't think she was called to the inquest.
She likely said that to get her name in the papers. She didn't come forward before. She only told that to a reporter days later. She never popped her head out the door and came outside when the police and everyone else were on Bucks Row shortly after.
Nor did she say, or likely even know, anything about Paul and Lechmere talking outside.
Thats why the police didn't take her seriously.
A lot of people involved themselves in the story for attention.
JTR covered up the wounds in Mary’s neck and abdomen, even though there wasn’t anyone there to catch him. Or ‘Cross’ and Paul covered them. But they didn’t mention the ghastly wounds or blood for that matter. They clearly saw her jolly bonnet laying next to her, felt her chest for signs of life. But….somehow Charles ‘Cross’ and Paul didn’t manage to see her intestines protruding from her abdomen. But Paul could see her well enough to suggest sitting her up. 🤔 why doesn’t this make sense?
When Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul turned up her dress was just above the knees and her neck was covered up with her clothing .Robert Paul tried to pull down her dress below the knees to cover her legs but couldn’t do it.Paul suggested propping her up against them gate, Charles lechmere refused to touch her. At the time the wounds were so fresh that there was no sign of blood and strangulation prevents blood spraying out. This is why lechmere has become a main suspect. It was until the doctor examined her in the morgue did they find the abdomen wounds.
@@jasoreed Where did you get the idea her neck wound was covered ? It wasn't according to Neil.
The gruesome mutilations to her abdomen on the other hand were hidden from sight by the clothing that covered her abdomen because on this occasion the victims clothing was not cut or ripped (that MO changed with the next victims). It was only in the morgue the Police (not Dr. LLewelyn) discovered she was disemboweled.
She was lying on her back, legs slightly spread, her dress was pulled up almost to her hips and her clothes were in disarray, the neck wound was clearly visible, and blood was leaking out.
Listen again to Neils statement. "I noticed blood oozing from a wound in her throat, her clothes were disarranged, her eyes were wide open."
Neil could see all this because he had a lamp. The 2 carmen didn't have a lamp and could not. They could see the shape of her body, the position of her bonnet, the fact that her dress was indecent, but at 3:40 in the dark, with no lamp and only a streetlantern at the end of the street, they did not see the wound to her neck, the blood or the fact her eyes were wide open. They were literally standing over her, touching her arm and chest, looking at her face, but they could not see. It was just too damn dark.
The neck was cut with a very sharp knife. When Paul approached and touched her and her body moved and the wound went from leaking to flowing. Bucks row at that time was a very dimly lit alleyway, it is reasonable to think even to police at the time that Lechmere/Cross nor Paul/Baul did not see any blood as they did not have lanterns with them. The abdominal wounds being covered by the killer kind of rules out Lechmere being the killer. It would make no sense for him to cover the abdominal wounds and stand still and wait for Paul to approach him when he would have had an opportunity to run or just walk away. The reason for covering the wounds is to put space between the killer and the approaching person, just as it did between the killer and Lechmere. Having covered the wounds there would be no reason for the killer to hang around and wait for somebody. This way of thinking is ridiculous.
@MrJackTR
It makes PERFECT sense if Lechmere was the killer to cover the wounds. So that the man approaching (Paul) didn't realise the severity of the situation. It makes zero sense that if the killer managed to avoid being seen and heard that he would bother to take the trouble to cover the wounds. He's managed to escape without anyone seeing him. No need to cover any wounds. If it wasn't Lechmere then the killer got away before Lechmere was even on Bucks Row.
It's possible when Cross and Paul saw Nichols she was still alive, considering how Neil found her warm and with blood pouring from her. The Ripper might have just strangled her unconscious and hid whilst the two men investigated, then came back to finish her off. This might explain why they could detect faint breathing, why they didn't get covered in blood and why they didn't notice any blood.
Another theory is that Charles Cross, or his real name, Charles Allen Lechmere (he gave a false last name), was the ripper and that he had just killed her minutes before and then acted as a witness when Paul came into the street. So she had just been killed when they were at the scene and by the time Neil came there was a pool of blood. Lechmere the only suspect to be found standing near a body close to the time of death, it's pretty amazing that he wasn't higher on the list of suspects for all those years.
Neil's testimony on the Saturday brings Mizen's behaviour into question.
Why didn't Mizen tell the detectives that he has been alerted to the body by two men?
There's no way the likes of Abberline would have allowed Neil to go in front of Baxter and state that HE was the first to find the body, if anyone involved with the investigation was aware of two men who had found it earlier than Neil and had wandered off into the night.
I think Paul's story on the Saturday evening and Sunday in Lloyds made the Police look foolish, (Paul's interview was run in the same issue of Lloyds as the report of Neil's evidence!) and luckily for them Cross came forward as the "other" man and was able to testify on the Monday. But I'll bet that Baxter was fuming at the fact the Police weren't aware that a Policeman had spoken to two key witnesses and had not only not taken their names, but hadn't even told the detectives...
I wonder whether the Police had sought Paul out on the Sunday, and called him to testify on the Monday. And it was because he didn't bother to turn up then to set the record straight that they were so rough with him weeks later when forcing him to attend?
I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't have called Paul, just as urgently as Cross. Unlike Cross, they had his name. Remember, his interview had Paul as the "Main Character" of the events involving Mizen and was quite sure that the woman was dead.
“And, seeing another Constable in Baker’s Row, I sent him for the ambulance.” What exactly did PC Neil mean by that? Was he suggesting that he flagged down PC Mizen the same way he got PC Thain’s attention, by waving his lamp. That in itself is problematic. Looking at the map there is a very narrow line of sight, if any, between Buck’s Row murder scene, along White’s Row? to junction of Baker’s Row.
I always felt Mizen simply wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed but did not deliberately withheld things or lied about what happened from the start.
He was knocking people up (earning a little extra money) and imo reacted almost indifferent when he got the message from the carmen about the woman lying in Bucks Row. At least he could have taken their names or asked a few questions indeed, but he did not.
But he did follow up on the message from the carmen (maybe not in a real hurry but he did go to Bucks Row to check) and thus ended up with PC Neil and a body of a murdered woman.
Neil on the other hand was in full control of the situation, had already signaled over Thain and sent him on his way to go fetch Dr. LLewelyn and now ordered Mizen who showed up at the scene to immediately get an ambulance.
Mizen was from H Division but Neil (and Thain) from J Division. So they were collegues and most likely knew eachother from sight but didn't come from the same station and probably didn't speak eachother again that day or the day after.
My guess is that all it took was for Mizen to simply assume the 2 carmen were in fact sent to him by Neil without actually asking him about it, to create or rather continue the misconception Neil was the one who found the body, with the latter not knowing any better.
Mizens statement at the inquest that he was wanted by another PC in Bucks Row points in that direction. In reality he probably got a message like "you are wanted in Bucks Row" but upon arrival and being met by another PC who ordered him to get an ambulance, he simply assumed "by another PC" was implied.
You could certainly make the argument he knew he messed up by the time of his inquest appearance on Monday and tried to downplay his lack of iniative and diligence and his not mentioning the carmen before to his superiors, but I'll give him the benefit of my doubt and accept he was genuinly mistaken.
I very much doubt the Police had already found Paul on Sunday and summoned him to the inquest. They had his name but nothing more.
The exact moment how and when the Police found out about the discovery mishap, and if it was from Cross or the LLoyds article, all depends on when Cross exactly presented himself to the Police and informed them about who really found the body first. I would assume he did it on Saturday after work or Sunday on his day off, so it's not really clear. Either way, they knew now about the 2 carmen, had Cross attending the inquest on Monday (and slotted him in nicely after Mizen) so Mizen could indentify him and Cross could set the record straight.
Maybe they expected Paul to show up too (although he certainly had not presented himself to the Police during the weekend) and he did not, but I suspect his rough treatment was settling the score for his comments in the LLoyds article where he said the woman was so cold she must have been lying there a long time with no Police walking by and where he accused Mizen of not reacting upon his message about the woman at all but simply continue with knocking people up.
@LucasLucas-ne4xs
There is no reason to disbelieve Mizen that Lechmere told him he was wanted on Bucks Row by another policeman. Lechmere certainly never said "I just found the body of a woman on Bucks Row, you'd better go there" so clearly Lechmere passed himself off as being merely a messenger. There is absolutely no indication it did not go down in that manner. That being the case, it wasn't Mizen's job to take down their names, as he would have assumed if there was any importance in doing this then officer on the actual spot would have done so already before letting them go. The other policeman was at the crime scene. Mizen wasn't.
Regardless, Mizen does seem to have appeared at Bucks Row quite quickly. Neil didn't say anything about it being a long time before he saw Mizen at Bakers Row. I assume Neil meant coming from Bakers Row, because you couldn't see Bakers Row from there.
@LucasLucas-ne4xs
By the way, Paul didn't turn up at the inquest until the 3rd day of it, which was Monday 17th September.
Paul, by all accounts, hadn't been located during the first week. He apparently wasn't found until after Annie Chapman was killed and the police enquired around the surrounding area, where Paul worked. They almost certainly got Paul because of that.
There is a decent theory that if Lechmere was JTR then he perhaps deliberately killed Chapman on Hanbury Street to try and steer the investigation in the direction of Paul, seeing as Paul worked very close by 29 Hanbury Street. That could explain why Lechmere strangely walked with Paul along Hanbury Street after coming across PC Mizen. Lechmere was late and should logically have gone the quickest way to work down Old Montague Street. He didn't, he went with Paul down Hanbury Street. The possible reason was to see where Paul was heading in case things came back to bite him on the backside and he needed to frame Paul. Perhaps he (Lechmere) got a bit worried over that week and decided to finger Paul, seeing as there had been no mention of him since the newspaper article.
House of Lechmere entered the chat lol
We need to start a club and have conventions! lol
Did the copper go "NER NER" as he wheeled the cart?
😂 ✌️
Got to say it does make a lot of sense for it to have been Charles cross
*Lechmere.
I still feel like JtR was one or more of the constables.
They would've had to have a spare uniform on them.
I've thought same
That can’t be possible as the PC of the day had to adhere to a strict timetable on their watch plus they also performed knocking up duties , waking ppl up at certain times in the morning so they weren’t late for work .
It was probably Lechmere. Do your research and don't rely on baseless speculation.
I don’t think Polly Nicols was the first , I think the earlier attacks were earlier attempts . This is why the case against Lechmere is so compelling and if you don’t think it was him you need to explain why her clothes were pulled down to cover up her abdominal and neck injuries . Why would the killer cover up what he had just done moments before lechmere turns up.
The Lechmere cult fails to take two accounts into consideration. Schwartz identified Kosminski as the man who attacked Stride. Kosminskis dna is on the shawl connected to the Eddowes murder. And no contrary to what people claim the dna has not been debunked. It passed the peer review test. Nobody including Lechmere can be tied to two of the murders, but Kosminski is. How do you explain that? The Lechmere cult bends facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts.
Good point about rearranging the clothes to coverup the abdominal wounds. When JtR wasn't disturbed he preferred to leave the mutilations displayed to horrify the public. Since he was disturbed with Polly Nichols he had to conceal his handiwork.
I also think there were more than just the 5 victims
Theoretically it could also be that he was disturbed by someone or something else, maybe even only some noise or some light far away. Also, if he was disturbed, I think taking time to cover his acts is not the only natural reaction one would imagine someone would do in that situation. Just getting away would be the most natural initial reaction. Of course it could also depend on how far someone else is still away and how much time one thinks one still has. Also, I don't know how much work it would have been to cover the wounds again. I mean maybe when he was done with his work, the skirt just more or less fell back to the normal position, covering everything more or less. It is surely not so that it would have taken much work, I mean he did not undress her before or so. What I find more interesting is that Cross did not want to touch her and to make her sit, as at least the killer must have known that this would have probably shown the disembowelment. Though if Paul had seen all that, it would not have changed much either. It is not so that he would have immediately thought this could have had only done by Cross.
@@mickdonedee1 Well, if you believe that Stride was a victim of JTR, then he probably murdered her when actually being witnessed by someone else (Schwartz). There he did not try to cover anything. Actually I don't think that JTR had ever been really nervous about being discovered. Otherwise he would have never even attempted to kill most of his victims, especially Chapman and Stride. In the case of Chapman it was never even in his hands to flee from the scene without being seen, he only depended on luck. But this luck he could only have if he did not care much about being dicovered, otherwise, as a cold and calculating person, you don't risk something like that.
The circumstantial evidence against charles cross bieng JTR is very compelling.
It really isn't. What evidence (not speculation. Evidence) is there it was Charles Cross? He was near the body shortly after one murder. He was not sighted near any other body. There is no evidence (his potential route to work is not evidence) he was near any other body. There is no record of any kind of violence in his life. There's no indication he was mentally ill. No indication he even associated with prostitutes or frequented the same pubs as the victims. No evidence he even owned a knife of the type used. No court of law would convict on such flimsy evidence.
Speculation and distortions of the truth are not the same as evidence.
Being the first at a body isn't very compelling evidence, and that's all there is for Cross. All the other evidence that is claimed to be against him only appears to be compelling if other evidence is ignored.
How so? What makes you think it wasn't Charles Lechmere?
@@otisdylan9532 then how do you explain in the movie - Jack the Ripper the missing evidence - when all this so called circumstantial evidence is placed in front of one of the highest queen council lawyers he looks over it and remarks that there is enough evidence here for this man to face a jury and go to trial , the jury would not like his lies is one of his comments.
Charles Lechmere, not Charles Cross.
Charles … Cross?
@Baz-Ten
If he was Jack The Ripper then Lechmere was trying to act innocent in the presence of another man. By lessening the severity of the situation and pretending to be just passing on a message he assumed (correctly) he wouldn't be detained.
Charles lechmere. Not Cross
Cross was the name he gave firstly.
true, but it’s not his real name. Kevin is correct.
@@franceshaypenny8481 But not his real name.
And he would still have been known by the name Cross today if he wasn't investigated. By law at a murder scene, you go by the name you was born, baptised, married, and baptised all you're kids in, and buried in old age with. Unless maybe you have something sinister to hide? Especially when your long gone stepfather died 20 odd years before. If that doesn't ring alarm bells nothing will.
@@franceshaypenny8481 We talk about his _real_ name.
The chances are cross was the murderer. No one else was in the street and it was dark.
Also he lied at the inquest about his surname which was Charles Leitchmere
He did not lie. He'd been brought up by a man named Cross, whom his mother had married after her first husband (John Lechmere) left her when Charles was young, and he was registered as "Charles Cross" in the 1861 Census. He was evidently still known as "Charles Cross" when he started work for Pickford's, and there's a strong possibility that he was the selfsame "Charles Cross" of Pickford's reported in a newspaper article(s) of the mid 1870s. The fact that he gave his actual home address, as well as his employers' details, to the authorities in 1888 shows that he clearly had nothing to hide -despite what the Lechmere cultists would have people believe.
Incorrect. His stepfather's name was Cross and he was listed as Charles Cross as a child, in the 1861 Census. He could legitimately use that name.
No, that was not a lie. His stepfather's name was Cross, and he was listed on a census as Cross. Chances are, that's what he was known as at his place of employment.
ZERO evidence against Lechmere. Literally NOTHING
@@otisdylan9532 your ignoring all the other documents with his name on it using lechmere , he only used the name cross at the ripper hearing and when a child was run over by a wagon from Pickford and died.
A little disappointing that you refer to Charles Lechmere as Charles Cross and that you dismiss his presence there as only having just arrived, negating that Lechmere is the most likely suspect and the only one found with one of the JtR bodies.
The most likely suspect is Kosminski. Nobody else including Lechmere can be tied to two of the murders. But Kosminski is. Schwartz identified him as the man who attacked Stride. His dna on the scawl in the Eddowes murder. And no, contrary to what people claim the dna has not been debunked. It passed the peer review test. How do you explain that? Thats two strikes.
Because I presume it's not the official narrative and accepted view yet and is only a theory at present,
That's the name he gave for the record, that's why.
He was seen by Robert Paul standing in the middle of the road, which is consistent with his own testimony. He was not "found with the body"
@@almklitwhat’s not a theory is Charles A Lechmere gave a fake name at inquest and he was with the recently murdered victim, alone for an unknown amount of time. Indisputable fact.