Blood - too much or little ?

[Abby Normal]

Didnt one of the drs sketches of Eddowes at the scene show pools of blood and or bodily fluids?

[Mark J D]

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

Dave,

As you know, I'm interested in the highly detailed work you've done on this.

Can I ask: what really convinces you that Eddowes was moved to 'murder corner' after she was killed?

For the record, I too suspect that she was; but I don't have much more than gut instinct and a scenario that makes sense to me alone...

Thanks,

Mark D.

[Michael W Richards]

Welcome back Michael! Been a while.

Thanks for that Mr Bundy. I missed ya'll.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

When it comes to whether the body was moved from the place where the women were actually killed I agree with the sentiments that with the noise factor of carts and horses its unlikely in Pollys case. There are some differences in the Mitre square location however that may factor into that question. The fact that there were vacant warehouse locations in that square, and the fact that the men involved in the Post Office Robbery that weekend were in that immediate area at the time of the murder. Could she have been carried by several men? Not impossible in my opinion. It might also help explain why the wounds themselves seem less "professional" than Annies, if they were inexperienced men in a hurry.

Welcome back Michael! Been a while.

[JeffHamm]

No, but we can't prove much at all, if anything, from this distance. It's just about throwing up points of interest to discuss - I'm pleased you're doing so thanks

Fair enough. I agree that we can't prove much anymore, and the best we can do is think of questions for which answers will never be known unless new evidence surfaces from somewhere. I still hope the missing suspects file will be found, but it is not looking good.

- Jeff

[Dickere]

Yes, it is important to note their views, but as they eventually explained that observation as the blood being soaked up by her clothing, I think we also have to go with that. What else can we do, really? There's no way we can make our own examinations while they actually did.

- Jeff

No, but we can't prove much at all, if anything, from this distance. It's just about throwing up points of interest to discuss - I'm pleased you're doing so thanks

[JeffHamm]

Yes that all makes sense of course, thanks.

The simple fact that the lack of blood at the scene was noted at the time is interesting in itself though, isn't it ? People of the time, used to the conditions etc, noted a lack of blood in this case strikes me as something out of the ordinary for them.

Yes, it is important to note their views, but as they eventually explained that observation as the blood being soaked up by her clothing, I think we also have to go with that. What else can we do, really? There's no way we can make our own examinations while they actually did.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

When it comes to whether the body was moved from the place where the women were actually killed I agree with the sentiments that with the noise factor of carts and horses its unlikely in Pollys case. There are some differences in the Mitre square location however that may factor into that question. The fact that there were vacant warehouse locations in that square, and the fact that the men involved in the Post Office Robbery that weekend were in that immediate area at the time of the murder. Could she have been carried by several men? Not impossible in my opinion. It might also help explain why the wounds themselves seem less "professional" than Annies, if they were inexperienced men in a hurry.

[Dickere]

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

Yes that all makes sense of course, thanks.

The simple fact that the lack of blood at the scene was noted at the time is interesting in itself though, isn't it ? People of the time, used to the conditions etc, noted a lack of blood in this case strikes me as something out of the ordinary for them.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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]

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