Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Robert]

If she was killed and had her throat cut somewhere else, you'd think there'd be a blood trail. If she was only strangled somewhere else, there'd be no blood trail at all, so a blood stain somewhere else would not be indicative of anything.

Also odd that her bonnet should come off at the very place where she was set down.

[harry]

I doubt it was any lighter in Brady Street than Bucks Row,or more travelled at that time in the morning.No sense in moving her from one site to another.

[Simon Wood]

Unless, of course, the original site was somehow incriminating in itself.

[David Orsam]

So you haven't looked at any of the medical evidence relating to the matter?

Yes I have, and, indeed, I referred to the medical evidence of Dr Llewellyn in the post you have just replied to (#598). If you are aware of any medical evidence which says positively that Nichols was killed where her body was found then perhaps you can now tell me what it is.

How do you suppose this lone killer transported her body from Brady Street to Buck's Row? Was he carrying her Frankenstein monster style across his arms or holding her under the arms, dragging her feet as he walked backwards? Or did he carry her in a wheelbarrow with a hole in the bucket?

Does it matter? He could simply have carried her in his arms. Why has this anything to do with Frankenstein? Why mention a wheelbarrow? He carried her small body in his arms. Is that so hard to believe?

[David Orsam]

we should have a considerable amount of blood along the route Nichols was carried

Well, the newspaper reports were of blood along the route and I can only quote what was reported at the time:

"Occasionally a larger splash was visible, and from the way in which the marks were scattered it seems as though the person carrying the mutilated body had hesitated where to deposit his ghastly burden, and gone from one side of the road to the other until the obscurity of Buck's-row afforded the shelter sought"

And didn't forensic physician Dr Jason Payne-James say in a recent documentary:

"I think there is always an assumption that somebody stabbed to death, there is going to be blood everywhere...Although we know the carotid arteries were cut it would seem that that was after death so it may just leak out or dribble out or drain out around the contours of the neck in this case, over a period of minutes"

Well actually I know he did because I have transcribed it. I assume you agree with him. So what's the problem with my theory?

and we should not have the police reporting that there was no blood close to the body

We have a little evidential problem there Fisherman because the blood close to the body was simply washed away by a member of the public while it was still dark before a senior officer ever even saw it.

[David Orsam]

If she was killed and had her throat cut somewhere else, you'd think there'd be a blood trail.

Well that's the whole point. The newspapers over the weekend of 1/2 September reported that there was indeed such a blood trail. See the OP and my post #5 in the Brady Street bloodstains thread.

[David Orsam]

I doubt it was any lighter in Brady Street than Bucks Row,or more travelled at that time in the morning.No sense in moving her from one site to another.

We know from the evidence of PC Neil that there was a street lamp "shining at the end of the row" in Buck's Row. We don't seem to have any evidence about Brady Street but I am assuming that there was a street lamp at least somewhere in that street. In the Brady Street bloodstains thread over in the Victims/Mary Ann Nichols board I have offered some possible reasons as to why the killer might have moved the body.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Well, the newspaper reports were of blood along the route and I can only quote what was reported at the time:

"Occasionally a larger splash was visible, and from the way in which the marks were scattered it seems as though the person carrying the mutilated body had hesitated where to deposit his ghastly burden, and gone from one side of the road to the other until the obscurity of Buck's-row afforded the shelter sought"

And didn't forensic physician Dr Jason Payne-James say in a recent documentary:

"I think there is always an assumption that somebody stabbed to death, there is going to be blood everywhere...Although we know the carotid arteries were cut it would seem that that was after death so it may just leak out or dribble out or drain out around the contours of the neck in this case, over a period of minutes"

Well actually I know he did because I have transcribed it. I assume you agree with him. So what's the problem with my theory?

I believe that particular physician very much alluded to whether there would necessarily be much - or any - blood on the person who commited a murder ā la the Nichols ditto. He wasnīt commenting on whether carrying a victim like Nichols would produce blood on the ground or not.

We have a little evidential problem there Fisherman because the blood close to the body was simply washed away by a member of the public while it was still dark before a senior officer ever even saw it.

Mmm. But I am not speaking about the blood UNDER the body. I am speaking about the blood by the side of the body - that was not there.

James Green did not wash all of Buckīs Row, did he?

And Neil said nothing about any other blood than the blood under Nichols.

Nor did Thain.

Nor did Mizen.

Nor did Llewellyn.

And these men had lamps to guide them in the darkness. And they left us with the take on things that there were only two marked depositions of blood on the ground - under Nicholsī neck and under her legs.

So I think we are on safe ground making the assumption that Nichols was killed in situ.

All the best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

Mmm. But James Green did not wash all of Buckīs Row, David, did he?

I don't know what he washed. The evidence of Spratling was that "One of Mr Brown's men wiped up the blood". The newspaper account was that Mrs Green said that her son "washed away the bloodstains on the pavement". So I have no idea how much of Buck's Row was washed. Do you? And in any case, you originally referred to "the blood close to the body" and there I think we are safe in saying that James Greed did wash this all away".

And Neil said nothing about any other blood than the blood under Nichols.
Nor did Thain.

Nor did Mizen.

Nor did Llewellyn.

None of these men did any looking around in broad daylight (Mizen didn't do any at all, while Llewellyn certainly didn't do any searching away from the body) and we just don't have sufficient information about how far from the body they searched using lamps (or exactly what they were looking for - i.e. Neil said he was looking for marks of wheels, others surely were looking for the weapon) in circumstances where at least some of the blood had been washed away.

So I think we are on safe ground making the assumption that Nichols was killed in situ.

I suppose we might be able to make that assumption were it not for the newspaper reports of bloodstains in Brady Street and if those reports are correct then I don't think that such an assumption is safe at all.

[Robert]

Hi David

But if bloodstains were noticed in Brady St, it's odd that none were noticed in Buck's Row, apart obviously from the ones outside Brown's Yard and a couple of stains west of it.

The zigzagging blood with 'hesitations' might be down to a number of factors, IF it was that of Nichols. It might indicate that the killer was elderly, or in some other way not in tiptop condition. It might show that Nichols was short but fat. It might show that the killer was drunk. But if the killer was having trouble getting the body along, it's odd that he managed the Buck's Row section without any splashes.

Re your idea that the killer might have been trying to hide the body, I think that would only work if the killer was indeed having trouble with the body, because otherwise he'd simply have tossed her over the gates, which would have been the best option.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam:

I don't know what he washed. The evidence of Spratling was that "One of Mr Brown's men wiped up the blood". The newspaper account was that Mrs Green said that her son "washed away the bloodstains on the pavement". So I have no idea how much of Buck's Row was washed. Do you? And in any case, you originally referred to "the blood close to the body" and there I think we are safe in saying that James Greed did wash this all away".

Hereīs what Mrs Green said - you forgot to post one part of it:

"My son went down as soon as the body was taken away and washed away the bloodstains on the pavement. There was quite a little pool, though I understand most of it soaked into the woman's dress...

So, Mrs Green, who would arguably have heard about things from her son, said that there was only a little pool of blood. And that pool would have been what her son washed away. Thatīs why I am saying that his efforts would not have extended to the rest of Buckīs Row.
And why would they have done so? The "blood" spoken of in the papers was in Brady Street, not in Buckīs Row. In Buckīs Row, there were only two shilling-sized drops.

None of these men did any looking around in broad daylight (Mizen didn't do any at all, while Llewellyn certainly didn't do any searching away from the body) and we just don't have sufficient information about how far from the body they searched using lamps (or exactly what they were looking for - i.e. Neil said he was looking for marks of wheels, others surely were looking for the weapon) in circumstances where at least some of the blood had been washed away.

Just like you say, it is impossible to know how far from the body they searched. But they would - at least to my mind - definitely have searched the pavement and street for a few yards with the aid or their lamps. And that would have disclosed any blood, but there was none to be seen.
Personally, I believe that they would have walked a very substantial stretch of the street in both directions, but it is not material if they did. If the body had been carried to where it was found, the immediately surrounding ground would have had blood on it, since we know that blood was running from the neck wound many minutes after Lechmere "found" her.

I suppose we might be able to make that assumption were it not for the newspaper reports of bloodstains in Brady Street and if those reports are correct then I don't think that such an assumption is safe at all.

I donīt think they ARE correct. They are newspaper reports, not police reports. Helson noticed one mark only that MAY have been blood. In the papers, it was reported that there was a large amount of blood up at a doorway, as if a body had lain there. How are we supposed to believe that Helson would have found just the one possible mark of blood but not a bloodbath up at a doorway...?

More pertinently, why did Nichols bleed profusely when being carried in a zig-zag pattern down Brady Street, only to then dry up when being carried 130 yards down Buckīs Row - whereafter she took up the bleeding again when laid down, and kept bleeding when Neil and Mizen saw her?

It does not add up at all to my mind, but if you are hellbent on seeing it as a credible suggestion, I wonīt argue with you any more over it.

The best,
Fisherman

PS. I know that you are uninterested in the Buckīs Row blood drops. I am not, however, and I would like to have it explained to me why a drop of blood would take on the shape of a shilling if it fell from the ambulance on which Nichols was wheeled to the mortuary - should not such a mark of blood be oblong and not round, disclosing that it was set off from a vehicle in motion, albeit at a modest speed?

[Robert]

Well Fish, if we go by your reasoning then we can safely dismiss any notion that the blood was from Crossmere, who was probably travelling more quickly than the police ambulance.

[David Orsam]

I believe that particular physician very much alluded to whether there would necessarily be much - or any - blood on the person who commited a murder ā la the Nichols ditto. He wasnīt commenting on whether carrying a victim like Nichols would produce blood on the ground or not.

The physician said that the blood would dribble out over a period of a few minutes. So it just dribbles out while the body is being carried, if moved immediately after the two minutes in which the same physician said it would take to kill and mutilate Nichols. Which explains why there was not a huge amount of blood on the street.

[Fisherman]

Well Fish, if we go by your reasoning then we can safely dismiss any notion that the blood was from Crossmere, who was probably travelling more quickly than the police ambulance.

Of course we should go by my reasoning - to begin with! The report posted by David siad that the drops were "well-defined" and shilling-sized. So the were round. Try to produce a round drop from a moving vehicle, and you will see what I mean.

Thus the drops would not have come from Nichols. Just the one drop could have been explained by Mizen stopping for some reason, but they were two and well apart, so we can rule that out in all probability.

Lechmere left with Paul, and he would not have been responsible for the drops - if they DID exost and if they WERE bllod.

In the article, it was said that "two men" found them. That would not be policemen, as I understand it.

So we are on very loose ground, letīs accept that.

The best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

Fisherman - just to move away from the detail for the moment and look at the big picture. Once the blood of Nichols was embarrassingly washed away (removing any chance of finding footsteps in that blood) I don't believe that the police had any real interest in searching for more bloodstains. What did they care if the body was killed in another street a few yards away? How does it help them or make any difference to the investigation of the crime? There was no understanding of forensic psychology and I just don't think it mattered to them. Sure, it mattered if the body was killed at an entirely separate location, hence the consideration of whether there were any wheel marks or tracks, thus bringing the body from a distance. And hence Helson gives evidence that the arrangement of the clothing showed to him that the body "could not have been carried far". Leaving aside how he came to this conclusion, it is obvious that he thought it might have been carried - but if had not been carried far then Helson didn't care.

Note that there is no mention in Helson's report of 31 August of any search for bloodstains, despite the fact that the report was supposed to contain the "fullest obtainable information" and in my view the attitude of the police was shown when the coroner asked Spratling about the search for bloodstains and Spratling answered him by telling him about the search for a weapon, only to receive a telling off from the coroner to answer the question he had been asked. For me, Spratling's attitude was telling because it showed the police's priority at the time. Where was the weapon?

And the reason the coroner was asking about the bloodstains was probably because of the newspaper report that morning that there were bloodstains in Brady Street. On the defensive, all the police officers said that they didn't see any blood but if they weren't actually looking for it at the time then that's not surprising. Such splatter would not be easy to see. As soon as it's daylight and residents start walking around and everyone's chatting about the murder, any proper search, which you need to do very carefully if it's just small splashes, becomes almost impossible. And there is no way the police are going to admit that a reporter found blood but they didn't!

Anyway, it's just my personal opinion and this, I believe, is true whether there were or were not stains in Brady Street. I may be wrong about reliance on the newspaper reports but I don't think they can simply be dismissed out of hand, especially if only on the basis of the police evidence.

(As for the Buck's Row blood you will have to ask Tom Westcott about the ambulance because it was his theory. My assumption remains that the LWN reporter explained this blood.)