Blood - too much or little ?

[Dickere]

I've read that there was rather too little blood at the Nicholls scene and too much at the Eddowes scene. Is there some truth to this? If so, thoughts and explanations welcomed. Could Nicholls have been killed elsewhere perhaps ?

[Aethelwulf]

I've read that there was rather too little blood at the Nicholls scene and too much at the Eddowes scene. Is there some truth to this? If so, thoughts and explanations welcomed. Could Nicholls have been killed elsewhere perhaps ?

I can't see how it could be possible really. If the cause of death was the cut to the throat, it would mean she was moved with her throat cut. Although most of the blood may have gone elsewhere, there would still be a trail. I also can't see how it could have been done (moved) without someone noticing. Also, we know Lech did it!

[Dickere]

I can't see how it could be possible really. If the cause of death was the cut to the throat, it would mean she was moved with her throat cut. Although most of the blood may have gone elsewhere, there would still be a trail. I also can't see how it could have been done (moved) without someone noticing. Also, we know Lech did it!

You seem to be assuming that she was killed in that place. The lack of blood there was noted at the time, but got lost as a point of interest as Chapman was killed soon after.

[Aethelwulf]

You seem to be assuming that she was killed in that place. The lack of blood there was noted at the time, but got lost as a point of interest as Chapman was killed soon after.

No that's not what I mean. If she was moved from elsewhere to Bucks Row how was she moved without her dangling severed head lolling about and leaving a trail of blood?

[Aethelwulf]

You seem to be assuming that she was killed in that place. The lack of blood there was noted at the time, but got lost as a point of interest as Chapman was killed soon after.

Also what Phillips said at Stride's inquest is of relevance;

Coroner] Were there any spots of blood anywhere else? - I could trace none except that which I considered had been transplanted - if I may use the term - from the original flow from the neck. Roughly estimating it, I should say there was an unusual flow of blood, considering the stature and the nourishment of the body.

He seems to be saying that for her poor physical state there should have been a less strong flow of blood. Perhaps in Nicholls' case that is the answer.

[Dickere]

No that's not what I mean. If she was moved from elsewhere to Bucks Row how was she moved without her dangling severed head lolling about and leaving a trail of blood?

Maybe she was in a cart or something where she bled out ?

[Dickere]

Also what Phillips said at Stride's inquest is of relevance;

Coroner] Were there any spots of blood anywhere else? - I could trace none except that which I considered had been transplanted - if I may use the term - from the original flow from the neck. Roughly estimating it, I should say there was an unusual flow of blood, considering the stature and the nourishment of the body.

He seems to be saying that for her poor physical state there should have been a less strong flow of blood. Perhaps in Nicholls' case that is the answer.

I don't think we can be certain, he may be saying the exact opposite - not as much blood as you'd expect.

[Aethelwulf]

I don't think we can be certain, he may be saying the exact opposite - not as much blood as you'd expect.

Yes, another example where Phillips could have done with adding a couple of extra words to clarify, or the coroner could have asked him to clarify.

[Aethelwulf]

Maybe she was in a cart or something where she bled out ?

He'd still have had to lug a body dead weight out of the cart onto the ground. Just can't see it, and my prime suspect had use of a horse and cart!

[Dickere]

He'd still have had to lug a body dead weight out of the cart onto the ground. Just can't see it, and my prime suspect had use of a horse and cart!

How about too much blood at the Eddowes scene ? Some of Nichols perhaps spread around

[JeffHamm]

I believe there is mention at the Nichols scene that much of the blood was underneath her and soaked up by her clothing, as such, what looked like less than expected amounts turned out not to be the case. Also, if Nichols was strangled to death, and not just unconsciousness, then there would be less blood forced out as the heart would no longer be beating. As for the Eddowes crime scene, it had been raining, and as a result, the blood would dilute and spread more, making it appear to be more than it really is.

Of course, I'm including some speculations, but in the end we just have insufficient information available to actually reassess the interpretations of those who were present and saw the crime scenes. In the Eddowes case we have direct statements saying she could not have been killed elsewhere, and I think in the end the same conclusion can be found with regards to Nichols too. In the Nichols case, there were some press reports suggesting she had been dumped where found, but those eventually were refuted as I recall.

Horse and carts were fairly noisy, and there are no reports of one being heard in either case, there are no signs of a blood trail, and the blood that was present produced a pool and pattern indicating their throats were cut where they lay. The blood on the fence in the Chapman case also suggests her throat was cut where she lay, as does the flow of the blood from Stride's throat. I think Kelly's goes without saying given she was killed in her own bed.

As such, there is no evidential basis upon which to build a case around the "killed elsewhere and dumped where found" for any of the murders in my view.

- Jeff

[Dickere]

I believe there is mention at the Nichols scene that much of the blood was underneath her and soaked up by her clothing, as such, what looked like less than expected amounts turned out not to be the case. Also, if Nichols was strangled to death, and not just unconsciousness, then there would be less blood forced out as the heart would no longer be beating. As for the Eddowes crime scene, it had been raining, and as a result, the blood would dilute and spread more, making it appear to be more than it really is.

Of course, I'm including some speculations, but in the end we just have insufficient information available to actually reassess the interpretations of those who were present and saw the crime scenes. In the Eddowes case we have direct statements saying she could not have been killed elsewhere, and I think in the end the same conclusion can be found with regards to Nichols too. In the Nichols case, there were some press reports suggesting she had been dumped where found, but those eventually were refuted as I recall.

Horse and carts were fairly noisy, and there are no reports of one being heard in either case, there are no signs of a blood trail, and the blood that was present produced a pool and pattern indicating their throats were cut where they lay. The blood on the fence in the Chapman case also suggests her throat was cut where she lay, as does the flow of the blood from Stride's throat. I think Kelly's goes without saying given she was killed in her own bed.

As such, there is no evidential basis upon which to build a case around the "killed elsewhere and dumped where found" for any of the murders in my view.

- Jeff

Thanks Jeff, always appreciate your knowledgeable input. I'm still uncomfortable with the Nichols explanation (not yours, I know), but perhaps it's correct. You'd just think any liquid would follow the path of least resistance and on a cobbled street there would be a natural flow, even under the body.

[JeffHamm]

Thanks Jeff, always appreciate your knowledgeable input. I'm still uncomfortable with the Nichols explanation (not yours, I know), but perhaps it's correct. You'd just think any liquid would follow the path of least resistance and on a cobbled street there would be a natural flow, even under the body.

No problem. I suppose it would be very situation dependent. For example, if her clothes around her neck resulted in the throat wound being "inside" her clothing (i.e. the collar is over the wound somewhat), then the blood would flow to the inside of the clothes, most getting soaked up, and only flowing to the cobbles once sufficiently saturated.

Or, depending upon the road conditions, the natural flow might have been to follow a course between the cobbles that went under the body, which would result in much of the blood getting soaked up.

Obviously, we can't examine any of those speculations, and we do have to rely upon the interpretations of those who were there. We might wonder about how they came to their conclusions, of course, but just because we might think they could be wrong doesn't mean we can then say "Which means my alternative idea must bewhat really happened! ..." That's an error too easy to make - sure we might think the original idea could be wrong, but that is a far cry from knowing it is wrong - moreover, if it is wrong, then our "alternative" idea is nothing but a guess because now we have nothing, not even a contemporary opinion, to base our guess upon! So is in all likelihood we're wrong as well and we might as well give up because the only information we have we've decided is unreliable, so we've now got nothing at all.

- Jeff

[jerryd]

I have always been surprised at the lack of mention of wet clothing, hair, wet cobblestone, etc. on Catherine from any witness. Lack of mention of rain too, except from the Lawende group. Another anomaly was Catherine was found with her palms facing upward. Not a natural position to end up.

[DJA]

I have always been surprised at the lack of mention of wet clothing, hair, wet cobblestone, etc. on Catherine from any witness. Lack of mention of rain too, except from the Lawende group. Another anomaly was Catherine was found with her palms facing upward. Not a natural position to end up.

Perhaps she was inside at 6 Mitre Street before being moved into Mitre Square.