Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Pcdunn 4 hours ago.
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - by ChrisGeorge 4 hours ago.
Non-Ripper Books by Ripper Authors: Mob Town by John Bennett - by ChrisGeorge 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Pcdunn 7 hours ago.
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - by etenguy 8 hours ago.
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - by Wickerman 10 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (30 posts)
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - (9 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Was Jack caught by London underworld? - (5 posts)
Non-Ripper Books by Ripper Authors: Mob Town by John Bennett - (2 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (2 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Scene of the Crimes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #461  
Old 05-18-2017, 09:44 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
You keep reading my posts as if you have problems understanding the simplest of things.
A. I have never expressed - and nor do I think - that there is little dount that Neil used the word profusely.
B. You have no idea if I would have been wrong if I had been of the meaning that Neil must have used profusely.
C. We all know that he did not use the word profusely at the inquest, so the point is a total waste of time.

Can I please ask you not to present your take on what I think and what I don´t think as some sort of truth in the future? Otherwise, I shall have to start spreading misinformation about you too, and that is not what the boards are meant for.
I was not "spreading misinformation" about you. I said that you keep posting as if there is little doubt in the matter that Neil used the word profusely. That is the case.

Just look at what you said in #322:

"The problem is that we cannot establish what it took for Neil to use the term profusely. It may have been enough that the blood was steadly running into the pool, which is what I think happened."

That is a post AS IF Neil did use the term.

Then, in #356, you said to me:

"Do YOU realize that there may have been a steady stream of blood running from the wound, and that this may have been enough for Neil to say that it ran rather profusely?"

Again, a question based on the assumption that Neil did say "it ran rather profusely".

That's why I say you keep posting as if there is little doubt he said it.

Further, you said earlier in this thread:

"Once more, profusely MAY be wrong, but since it is in the reports, it is more likely not." (#230)

So you think it is more likely than not that he did say "profusely". An absurd position.

You have offered the following explanation:

"Why would the reporters make up that the blood was said to be running profusely? How did they know that Nichols was so freshly killed as to still bleed? Why would the source NOT be Neil? Why should we favour the idea that is was make-believe over the idea that Neil simply said that the blood ran profusely?" (#188)

Suggesting that the reporters would not make up the word "profusely" is another way of saying there is little doubt that Neil said it.

Indeed, despite the fact that we have the inquest testimony, you have actually stated that "profusely" is the best evidence we have about the blood, thus:

"Until evidence can be presented to dispell what the papers - and they were many - said about the blood running profusely, it has to stand as the best bid we have." (#192)

So I have now presented the evidence to back up my claim. Perhaps you forgot the things you've said but you HAVE been posting as if there is little doubt that Neil used the word "profusely", which was the reason for my complaint.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #462  
Old 05-18-2017, 09:53 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Yawn. Just yawn.

"Fisherman is sunk".

Davids wet dream all over again.

"We have saved a man from being framed for murder".

Delusions of grandeur.

Payne-James is of the meaning that Lechmere fits very well with the blood evidence. But he is wise enough to recognize that another killer cannot be excluded. Meaning that much as he recognizes that Lechmere fits the blood bill, he does not reccommend convicting the carman categorically.

I am of the exact same meaning. Lechmere fits the blood bill, but all we can say is that it would be less likely with another killer, not that it absilutely MUST have been the carman. Taken together with the many anomalies surrounding Lechmere, though, he does become a very compelling candidate, and personally, I have little doubt that he did it.

That does not mean that I am "framing a man for murder", nor that Payne-James does so. It means that we are pointing to him as a quite likely candidate, and I entertain a personal belief that the killer has been found.

David Orsam has been toppled over! Hoorah!! The reign of the nifty naysayer is over! A man who seems to have been the killer of Nichols can finally be reinstated as the main suspect again (for those who so wish)!!! Flags, champagne, fireworks!!!!

Farcical, David, farcical. But quite rewarding to realize that you always regarded my theory as floating, up until now that you, ehrm, "sunk it". You have forgotten to tell me that, so thanks.
Strangely enough, Fisherman, while you obsess over some of the concluding language I used, you don't seem to have addressed any of the substantive points I made in my post.

Your only point seems to be that you have never actually excluded the (theoretical) possibility that someone other than Lechmere committed the murder of Nichols. How magnanimous of you!

I have always been aware that you have never said it can only be Lechmere. The criticism I am making of you is that you keep saying that the evidence of the blood somehow points towards Lechmere or makes him the most likely suspect. For the reasons I have set out in great detail, to which you have not responded, this is a conclusion which is not properly available to you.

Look at what Dr Biggs said in the clearest possible terms:

"You can’t tell anything about time of injury / death by assessing the blood loss at the scene."


If you can't tell anything about the time of death by assessing the blood loss at the scene then you can't tell anything about whether Lechmere committed the murder or not by assessing the blood loss at the scene.

Yet, in the most tortuous language imaginable you say: "Payne-James is of the meaning that Lechmere fits very well with the blood evidence."

It's so tortuously worded because you know full well that Payne James has said nothing about whether Lechmere "fits with the blood evidence". Not in any quote that has been provided from him at least. What, I think you are saying, in an extremely devious way, is that it is your own (highly subjective) interpretation of what Payne James has said that Lechmere fits very well with the blood evidence.

But I have given the clearest reasons why this is not the case and you have not refuted them.

Saying that "Payne-James is of the meaning that Lechmere fits very well with the blood evidence" is just another blatant and ever more desperate attempt to frame Lechmere with a statement that is at best misleading, at worse completely untrue.

Lechmere cannot possibly be said to be any more (or less) likely than anyone else to have committed the murder on the basis of the witness observations that were made about the blood.

Fortunately your cunning scheme to frame Lechmere with the blood evidence has now been foiled.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #463  
Old 05-18-2017, 11:35 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Strangely enough, Fisherman, while you obsess over some of the concluding language I used, you don't seem to have addressed any of the substantive points I made in my post.

Your only point seems to be that you have never actually excluded the (theoretical) possibility that someone other than Lechmere committed the murder of Nichols. How magnanimous of you!

I have always been aware that you have never said it can only be Lechmere. The criticism I am making of you is that you keep saying that the evidence of the blood somehow points towards Lechmere or makes him the most likely suspect. For the reasons I have set out in great detail, to which you have not responded, this is a conclusion which is not properly available to you.

Look at what Dr Biggs said in the clearest possible terms:

"You can’t tell anything about time of injury / death by assessing the blood loss at the scene."


If you can't tell anything about the time of death by assessing the blood loss at the scene then you can't tell anything about whether Lechmere committed the murder or not by assessing the blood loss at the scene.

Yet, in the most tortuous language imaginable you say: "Payne-James is of the meaning that Lechmere fits very well with the blood evidence."

It's so tortuously worded because you know full well that Payne James has said nothing about whether Lechmere "fits with the blood evidence". Not in any quote that has been provided from him at least. What, I think you are saying, in an extremely devious way, is that it is your own (highly subjective) interpretation of what Payne James has said that Lechmere fits very well with the blood evidence.

But I have given the clearest reasons why this is not the case and you have not refuted them.

Saying that "Payne-James is of the meaning that Lechmere fits very well with the blood evidence" is just another blatant and ever more desperate attempt to frame Lechmere with a statement that is at best misleading, at worse completely untrue.

Lechmere cannot possibly be said to be any more (or less) likely than anyone else to have committed the murder on the basis of the witness observations that were made about the blood.

Fortunately your cunning scheme to frame Lechmere with the blood evidence has now been foiled.
I myself am of the meaning that Fisherman is of the meaning that P-J is of the meaning.

Last edited by Pierre : 05-18-2017 at 11:44 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #464  
Old 05-18-2017, 11:45 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Dear me. Dear, dear me. That speaks for itself.
So sayeth the man who's thinking on this subject has become so blinkered that he believes an unattributed article, in a sensationalist rag, should take priority over the sworn testimony of a police officer at an inquest.

Oh dear. How far the mighty have fallen...fallen...fallen.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #465  
Old 05-18-2017, 11:51 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
You have not learnt a iot of all the information passed on out here, have you?

Llewellyn was called out, not to perform a full autopsy on the sidewalk, but to determine if the woman was dead. He then directed the body to be taken to the mortuary FOR FURTHER EXAMINATION! What do you think that further examination was about?
Perhaps it was about getting a full picture? Eh?

There were numerous people by the body in Bucks Row, some of whom handled the body and lifted it onto the ambulance. None of them noticed the wounds to the abdomen.

What a pack of incompetent idiots, eh? Or is it just Llewellyn who needs to be painted out as such?

Do you have any idea why the coroner did not severely reprimand Llewellyn for his lack of professionalism? Why did the coroner not demand that he could see through cloth when required? Any ideas?

There is one imcompetence only, and it rests firmly with you. For opening your mouth when you could have kept it shut. It is really a very sad business, and it carries with itself the risk that somebody may read you and take what you say as useful and correct information, when it is instead the exact opposite - disinformation.
And how many of those other individuals were medical professionals? Dr Llewellyn was a medical professional but, despite this, he failed to thoroughly examine the body in situ. Now, maybe the responsibilities of medical men were less onerous in those days, but that suggests incompetence to me.

And it's not as if he didn't view the body closely. I mean, it's not as if he turned up with a big stick and started poking the body from several feet away, before declaring: "well, she's not moving. I can confidently confirm that this individual is definitely dead!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #466  
Old 05-18-2017, 12:02 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post
I'm happy you used the term "so-called blood evidence", Harry. I can't say I've managed to slog my way through each contentious post debating the this "blood evidence", but I can say - from what I have read - that nothing new or compelling comes from it. It is always argument for argument's sake over a point that's ultimately irrelevant. It's a red herring. Fisherman will concede no points made against this "blood evidence", just as he concedes nothing to common sense, human nature, and rational thought when discussing how a man who (if we are to believe Fisherman) murdered and mutilated a woman mere seconds before launching into a fly-by-the-seat-of-his pants plan to get away with it by continually submitting himself to examination, scrutiny, "authority", and as a target for suspicion (yet no one involved seems to have had any against him).

Discussion of "blood evidence" takes our eyes off the ball, and I think that's by design. Because there IS no blood evidence, only words like "oozing" taken from press reports, nothing can ultimately be proven. Fisherman can go 'round and 'round, claim victory (because this is ALL based on opinion and no opinion can be proven correct or incorrect), and tell us his theory has withstood yet another assault from the jealous haters who have been against him from the start.

Descriptions of what Lechmere did, while coming to us from those same media sources, are - I think - more easily understood. We have myriad statements from Paul, Mizen, Neil, Thain, Lechmere himself, media accounts of his appearance at the inquest. We know - with some degree of reliability - what he did, how he acted. We know he waited for Paul to reach him. We know he called Paul's attention to Nichols. We know he examined Nichols with Paul. We know he went in search of a PC. We know he found Mizen. We know Paul gave a statement to Lloyds and we know that statement didn't identify Lechmere to any extent and we know that it diminished Lechmere's role in Bucks Row to insignificance. And we know that Lechmere appeared of his own volition at the Inquest some 48 hours after the murder.

So, where does that leave us? Well, for me, if I apply logic to what we know of Lechmere's actions, I see nothing suspicious. I see a man who submitted himself completely as a witness. So, now what? So, let's look at the man. What do we know of him. Is there anything there that pairs with his actions to make us suspect him? Well, we know that he was married for fifty years. We know that he raised 10 children. We know he maintained steady employment and opened a shop later in life. We know he died an old man in his 70s. We know he left his wife a nice sum on his death. We know of no violent episodes. No arrests. No allegations of domestic abuse. No allegations that he "hated women". No allegations that he "hated his mother". But we know he used a "false name"! But, then...it wasn't "false", was it? So, our heroes select a different word, "alternate" name. But, what do we know of that issue? Not much. NOTHING to make anyone to believe that the man was JACK THE RIPPER!

Of course, we can hear tales of this serial killer and that. How he had kids. How he was married. Again. More red herrings. Just apply one simple metric: Is it reasonable to believe that Charles Lechmere was Jack the Ripper?

One must also look at the further leaps in logic required to fit Lechmere as the Ripper. Why did he stop killing? He didn't! He was the Torso Killer.....among others! Then we hear these other reasons to suspect him: His route to work took him near all the murder sites (except the sites that weren't on his route to work, of course. He was visiting his mom at those times. Because they were on the weekend, too.)? The murders took place across a small geographic area. Close to one...is close to all. Especially when dealing with a situation where the "suspect" is MOVING THROUGH the AREA. A route is different from a home, or a place of employment, a station. He's moving. Through a small geographic area. He - and MANY OTHERS - are going to come close to these spots because they walked the same streets as the killer.

Again, logic tells you one thing. The theory tells you another.
Well said again Patrick. And how on earth any modern forensic scientists can come to any form conclusions, regarding the blood evidence in the Nichols case, is anybody's guess. I mean, it's not as if we have a completed, thoroughly detailed forensic report. What we're essentially left with is what was said at inquest and, in that regard, much of the medical evidence is vague, limited and potentially ambiguous, at least by today's standards.

And, if you're going to go to the trouble of engaging a modern expert, it would help if you asked the right questions in a unconvoluted manner.

Last edited by John G : 05-18-2017 at 12:28 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #467  
Old 05-18-2017, 12:06 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Yes, Gareth, we all know how Gary Ridgway stopped killing the second he was approached by the police. And Sutcliffe, who was approached multiple times, of course also stopped killing on account of that. No serialist would be brazen enough to kill when under possible suspicion! Not Hansen, not Gacy, not a single one of them.

Why is it that comments like this one are even uttered by people like you, who should be decently well read up on the history of serial killing?
Did either of these individuals commit a murder during an inquest, into a previous murder they'd committed, was on going, and to which they were called to attend?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #468  
Old 05-18-2017, 12:09 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,623
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Yes, Gareth, we all know how Gary Ridgway stopped killing the second he was approached by the police. And Sutcliffe, who was approached multiple times, of course also stopped killing on account of that. No serialist would be brazen enough to kill when under possible suspicion! Not Hansen, not Gacy, not a single one of them.
Had any of them been summoned to attend an ongoing inquest into a murder that had happened barely a week previously, and went on to commit yet another murder whilst the inquest was in full swing?

Edit: I see John G has made the same point. Great minds...
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

Last edited by Sam Flynn : 05-18-2017 at 12:13 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #469  
Old 05-18-2017, 12:19 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,915
Default The Source of the Star's Report of 31 August

Was PC Neil the source of the Star's comment about blood flowing profusely from the wound, as Fisherman argues, or can we put it down to some journalistic invention?

Well let's just look at what the Globe published in its second edition of 31 August 1888, timed at 12.30pm, based on a Central News agency report:

"SECOND EDITION
GLOBE OFFICE, 367, Strand, 12.30 p.m.
ANOTHER WHITECHAPEL MYSTERY
BRUTAL MURDER OF A WOMAN
The Central News says: - Scarcely have the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel some short time ago had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim, is even more glaringly outrageous and horrible. The affair up to the present is enveloped in mystery, and the police have as yet no evidence to trace the perpetrators of the outrage. The facts are that as constable John Neil was walking down Bucks-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o’clock this morning he discovered a woman between 35 and 40 years of age lying at the side of the street with her throat cut from ear to ear. The wound was about two inches wide, and the woman was lying in a pool of blood. She was conveyed to the Whitechapel Mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat, the lower part of her body was shockingly mutilated, the injuries, which were of a sickening nature, having apparently been effected with a large knife. As the body lies in the mortuary it presents a ghastly sight. The victim is a woman 5ft. 2in. in height. The hands are bruised and bear evidence of having engaged in a severe struggle. There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of the deceased’s fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle. Some of the front teeth have been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks, and very much discoloured. The deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front. Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed. The only way by which the police can prosecute an inquiry at present is by finding some one who can identify the deceased and then, if possible, trace those in whose company she was last seen. In Buck’s-row the greatest excitement prevails, and several persons in the neighbourhood state that an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor was anything noticed beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl
."

Now compare that to what appears to have been a story based on that exact same agency report which appeared in the Star that same afternoon (almost certainly in a later edition):

"Scarcely has the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel recently had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim is even more shocking. As Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning, he discovered a woman lying at the side of the street with her throat cut from ear to ear. The wound was about two inches wide and blood was flowing profusely. She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding. The wound extends nearly to her breast, and must have been effected with a large knife. As the corpse lies in the mortuary, it presents a ghastly sight. The victim seems to be between 35 and 40 years of age, and measures 5ft. 2in. in height. The hands are bruised, and bear evidence of having engaged in a severe struggle. There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of deceased's fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle. Some of the front teeth have also been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks and very much discoloured. Deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front. Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed. Several persons in the neighborhood state that an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor anything beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl."

Let's go through them and compare the wording side by side:

Globe: Scarcely have the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel some short time ago had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim, is even more glaringly outrageous and horrible.
Star: Scarcely has the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel recently had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim is even more shocking.

Globe: Body found "lying at the side of the street" by "constable John Neil" as he was "walking down Bucks-Row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel" at about quarter to four o'clock and her throat was cut "from ear to ear".
Star: "As Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning, he discovered a woman lying at the side of the street with her throat cut from ear to ear"

Globe: woman was "between 35 and 40 years of age"
Star: The victim seems to be between 35 and 40 years of age.

Globe: wound about two inches wide.
Star: The wound was about two inches wide.

Globe: the woman was lying in a pool of blood.
Star: blood was flowing profusely.

Globe: She was conveyed to the Whitechapel Mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat, the lower part of her body was shockingly mutilated.
Star: She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding.

Globe: injuries were of a sickening nature having been inflicted with a large knife.
Star: The wound extends nearly to her breast, and must have been effected with a large knife.

Globe: victim is 5ft 2 in. in height.
Star: victim measures 5ft. 2in. in height.

Globe: hands are bruised and bear evidence of having engaged in severe struggle.
Star: The hands are bruised, and bear evidence of having engaged in a severe struggle.

Globe: There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of the deceased’s fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle.
Star: There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of deceased's fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle.

Globe: Some of the front teeth have been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks, and very much discoloured. The deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front.
Star: Some of the front teeth have also been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks and very much discoloured.

Globe: The deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front.
Star: Deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front.

Globe: Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed.
Star: Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed.

Globe: The only way by which the police can prosecute an inquiry at present is by finding some one who can identify the deceased and then, if possible, trace those in whose company she was last seen.
Star: Not mentioned

Globe: In Buck’s-row the greatest excitement prevails, and several persons in the neighbourhood state that an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor was anything noticed beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl.
Star: Several persons in the neighborhood state that an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor anything beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl.

There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Star's source was the Central News Agency report which was circulating at just after midday on 31 August. The two stories are virtually identical in their facts and wording, although the Star has changed the order around slightly, tinkered with a few words and presented it as its own report.

There are only two significant differences between the reports. Whereas the Star says that "the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding", for reasons of taste, to protect the sensibilities of its readers, the Globe appears to have modified this, or used a modified version of the report, to simply say that the lower part was "shockingly mutilated".

But the most interesting difference is that the original Central News report only speaks of Nichols lying in a pool of blood. This must at least create the suspicion that the Star has modified this for journalistic effect to say that the blood was flowing profusely, which is what many have suspected all along.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #470  
Old 05-18-2017, 12:24 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,648
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Was PC Neil the source of the Star's comment about blood flowing profusely from the wound, as Fisherman argues, or can we put it down to some journalistic invention?

Well let's just look at what the Globe published in its second edition of 31 August 1888, timed at 12.30pm, based on a Central News agency report:

"SECOND EDITION
GLOBE OFFICE, 367, Strand, 12.30 p.m.
ANOTHER WHITECHAPEL MYSTERY
BRUTAL MURDER OF A WOMAN
The Central News says: - Scarcely have the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel some short time ago had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim, is even more glaringly outrageous and horrible. The affair up to the present is enveloped in mystery, and the police have as yet no evidence to trace the perpetrators of the outrage. The facts are that as constable John Neil was walking down Bucks-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o’clock this morning he discovered a woman between 35 and 40 years of age lying at the side of the street with her throat cut from ear to ear. The wound was about two inches wide, and the woman was lying in a pool of blood. She was conveyed to the Whitechapel Mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat, the lower part of her body was shockingly mutilated, the injuries, which were of a sickening nature, having apparently been effected with a large knife. As the body lies in the mortuary it presents a ghastly sight. The victim is a woman 5ft. 2in. in height. The hands are bruised and bear evidence of having engaged in a severe struggle. There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of the deceased’s fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle. Some of the front teeth have been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks, and very much discoloured. The deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front. Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed. The only way by which the police can prosecute an inquiry at present is by finding some one who can identify the deceased and then, if possible, trace those in whose company she was last seen. In Buck’s-row the greatest excitement prevails, and several persons in the neighbourhood state that an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor was anything noticed beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl
."

Now compare that to what appears to have been a story based on that exact same agency report which appeared in the Star that same afternoon (almost certainly in a later edition):

"Scarcely has the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel recently had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim is even more shocking. As Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning, he discovered a woman lying at the side of the street with her throat cut from ear to ear. The wound was about two inches wide and blood was flowing profusely. She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding. The wound extends nearly to her breast, and must have been effected with a large knife. As the corpse lies in the mortuary, it presents a ghastly sight. The victim seems to be between 35 and 40 years of age, and measures 5ft. 2in. in height. The hands are bruised, and bear evidence of having engaged in a severe struggle. There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of deceased's fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle. Some of the front teeth have also been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks and very much discoloured. Deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front. Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed. Several persons in the neighborhood state that an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor anything beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl."

Let's go through them and compare the wording side by side:

Globe: Scarcely have the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel some short time ago had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim, is even more glaringly outrageous and horrible.
Star: Scarcely has the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel recently had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim is even more shocking.

Globe: Body found "lying at the side of the street" by "constable John Neil" as he was "walking down Bucks-Row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel" at about quarter to four o'clock and her throat was cut "from ear to ear".
Star: "As Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning, he discovered a woman lying at the side of the street with her throat cut from ear to ear"

Globe: woman was "between 35 and 40 years of age"
Star: The victim seems to be between 35 and 40 years of age.

Globe: wound about two inches wide.
Star: The wound was about two inches wide.

Globe: the woman was lying in a pool of blood.
Star: blood was flowing profusely.

Globe: She was conveyed to the Whitechapel Mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat, the lower part of her body was shockingly mutilated.
Star: She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding.

Globe: injuries were of a sickening nature having been inflicted with a large knife.
Star: The wound extends nearly to her breast, and must have been effected with a large knife.

Globe: victim is 5ft 2 in. in height.
Star: victim measures 5ft. 2in. in height.

Globe: hands are bruised and bear evidence of having engaged in severe struggle.
Star: The hands are bruised, and bear evidence of having engaged in a severe struggle.

Globe: There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of the deceased’s fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle.
Star: There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of deceased's fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle.

Globe: Some of the front teeth have been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks, and very much discoloured. The deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front.
Star: Some of the front teeth have also been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks and very much discoloured.

Globe: The deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front.
Star: Deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front.

Globe: Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed.
Star: Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed.

Globe: The only way by which the police can prosecute an inquiry at present is by finding some one who can identify the deceased and then, if possible, trace those in whose company she was last seen.
Star: Not mentioned

Globe: In Buck’s-row the greatest excitement prevails, and several persons in the neighbourhood state that an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor was anything noticed beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl.
Star: Several persons in the neighborhood state that an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor anything beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl.

There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Star's source was the Central News Agency report which was circulating at just after midday on 31 August. The two stories are virtually identical in their facts and wording, although the Star has changed the order around slightly, tinkered with a few words and presented it as its own report.

There are only two significant differences between the reports. Whereas the Star says that "the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding", for reasons of taste, to protect the sensibilities of its readers, the Globe appears to have modified this, or used a modified version of the report, to simply say that the lower part was "shockingly mutilated".

But the most interesting difference is that the original Central News report only speaks of Nichols lying in a pool of blood. This must at least create the suspicion that the Star has modified this for journalistic effect to say that the blood was flowing profusely, which is what many have suspected all along.
David, great work. I await a rebuttal based on the two sources rather than personal belief.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.