Brady St bloodstains Aug 31st

[Tom_Wescott]

In Buck's Row, naturally, the greatest excitement prevails, and several persons in the neighbourhood state than an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor anything beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl.

This was first reported in The Star of August 31st and also appeared in the Eastern Post of Sept. 1st.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Abby Normal]

A few more thoughts about the police evidence:

In my opinion, it would simply not have been possible for the police to have effectively searched for small drops of blood on the street during hours of darkness or near darkness. Any supposed searches carried out before 6am with or without a lantern would have been futile. The only searches that we could even begin to safely rely on are those carried out in daylight. And in that respect I want to emphasise that the only daylight search, according to the police, was carried out by Inspector Spratling.

We know this because while PC Neil was giving evidence at the inquest (in response to a question from the coroner) that he examined the ground at about 4am, Inspector Spratling leapt up and interrupted the evidence to say that he examined the ground in daylight. Note that he did not say "I examined the ground as did Inspector Helson and others", just that he, Spratling, examined the ground. He later said that this was between 11 and 12.

Yet, we know from his report of 31 Aug, and from his answer to the coroner during his evidence on the Monday, that Spratling was involved in the search for the murder weapon, examining the nearby railway embankments and lines as well as the Great Eastern Railway yard. Did he really have sufficient time to carry out a careful search not only of Buck's Row but also the surrounding streets? For it would be very strange if Spratling only searched Buck's Row and Brady Street. What about Thomas Street and Baker's Row? If he thought Brady Street worth searching then why not these streets too? Surely such a search would have needed to have been carried out by a team of officers, not just Spratling on his own or with Sergeant Godley (who was also have said to have assisted in the search for the weapon).

Now what about Helson? How did he come to see something that looked like blood in Brady Street? Firstly, we need to emphasise that Spratling claimed not to have seen any blood in Brady Street which is inconsistent with his colleague's account.

Let me quote now from the Daily News of 1 September 1888:

"The matter is being investigated by Detective Inspector Abberline, of Scotland yard, and Inspector Helson, J Division. The latter states that he walked carefully over the ground soon after 8 o'clock in the morning, and beyond the discolourations ordinarily found on pavements, there was no sign of stains."

On the face of it, this would appear to support the notion that Helson did carry out a search for bloodstains during the hour between 8am and 9am when he said he was in Buck's Row. However, the Daily News report continues:

"Viewing the spot where the body was found, however, it seems difficult to believe that the woman received her death wounds there".

On my reading of this, it rather seems that walk that Helson did "carefully over the ground" was basically to look for the blood that he assumed must have flowed from the body of Nichols where it was found in Buck's Row. And, of course, he found none. From the ignorance of the reporter, it is clear that he had no idea that the blood had been washed away by James Green and, controversially, I would like to offer the suggestion that Inspector Helson did not know either! While I imagine many posters on this board will disagree with me, the circumstances that morning would have been very confusing and, just knowing how large organisations work, I can easily imagine that the embarrassing news that a member of the public had simply come out and washed away the blood had not been communicated to everyone in the force by 9am that morning. Thain knew and Spratling knew but did they really want the rest of the world to know? It is not clear that Spratling and Helson had even spoken by 9am.

The news of the washing away of the blood certainly did not emerge during Neil's testimony, even though he was asked about his examination of the ground (at which point Spratling, as mentioned, intervened but said nothing about the washing) and it was only after it was reported in the Sunday papers that Green's actions were revealed to the coroner.

My own tentative theory is that, after the story about the Brady Street bloodstains broke in the newspapers, Inspector Helson went back to Brady Street (probably on the Sunday because he was at the inquest on Saturday) and it was then that he noticed something looking like blood in the street. But by that time all the other stains had faded.

Anyway, whether this is right or not, the short point is that by Spratling's own account to the coroner, he was the only person to search the ground for blood during daylight.

Hi David
So what if blood drops were found in Brady street? It could be from anything, or it might not even have not been blood.

What's the point and how does it tie into your theory? What is your theory? And or what's your big theory?

[Tom_Wescott]

Sarah Colwell

Regarding the idea that the incident witnessed by Sarah and Charlotte Colwell happened shortly after midnight, I believe the following is the source for that. However, this doesn't seem to be describing the same incident.

In Buck's Row, naturally, the greatest excitement prevails, and several persons in the neighbourhood state than an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor anything beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl. In any case, the police unfortunately will have great difficulty in bringing to justice the murderer or murderers. - East London Observer, Sept. 1st, 1888

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom. After lifting Nichols onto the ambulance, PC Thain was ordered (presumably by Sgt Kirby) to wait on the spot for the arrival of Inspector Spratling (during which period the blood in Buck's Row was washed away by Mrs Green's son). When Spratling arrived, he ordered Thain to conduct a search of nearby premises (including Essex Wharf, the Great Eastern Railway, the East London Railway and the District Railway, as far as Thomas Street). So, if Thain did eventually go back to his beat, any blood on him would long since have congealed/dried and would certainly not have dripped off him in Brady Street.

Thanks, David. It was a good idea, but obviously not the right one.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

PC Thain states he got hands bloody lifting Nichols onto the ambulance.

PC Thain's beat is Brady Street, which he presumably returned to.

Blood drops and bloody handprints were later seen in Brady Street.

Might that be the explanation?

Hi Tom. After lifting Nichols onto the ambulance, PC Thain was ordered (presumably by Sgt Kirby) to wait on the spot for the arrival of Inspector Spratling (during which period the blood in Buck's Row was washed away by Mrs Green's son). When Spratling arrived, he ordered Thain to conduct a search of nearby premises (including Essex Wharf, the Great Eastern Railway, the East London Railway and the District Railway, as far as Thomas Street). So, if Thain did eventually go back to his beat, any blood on him would long since have congealed/dried and would certainly not have dripped off him in Brady Street.

[Tom_Wescott]

Just a thought I'd try out. Let me know if it seems plausible.

PC Thain states he got hands bloody lifting Nichols onto the ambulance.

PC Thain's beat is Brady Street, which he presumably returned to.

Blood drops and bloody handprints were later seen in Brady Street.

Might that be the explanation?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Was it a separate incident, David ?

It must have been a separate incident because the Colville incident involved a woman screaming whereas, with the incident at midnight, no screams were heard.

Ah, so Llewellyn never offered an opinion on where she was killed at the inquest. Was he asked?

It doesn't look like he was for some strange reason.

Indeed, as Insp Helson noted in the Birmingham Daily Post 4/9/88:
"He (Helson)was of the opinion the murder was committed where the body was found."

There is no need to quote from a Birmingham newspaper. That is basically what Helson said at the inquest and I referred to this in some detail in post #5 in this thread. The short point is that the reason Helson gave for coming to his conclusion was that "the clothes were very little arranged"(whatever that means) - nothing to do with the medical evidence - and he was also reported as saying that "the body could not have been carried far" which actually seems to support that idea that she could have been killed in Brady Street and carried a short way down the road!

What about the equally dark Mitre Square and the organ removal and facial cuts in that instance ? Eddowes was most certainly killed where she was found.

For the purposes of my theory I would love to be able to say that Eddowes was killed in an area of more light then moved to "the darkest corner" of Mitre Square. From the existing sketches of Mitre Square, I have some difficulty in seeing where the light source came from for the killer to see what he was doing. However, I am aware that I am faced with the evidence of Dr Sequeira that, "There would have been sufficient light to enable the murderer to commit his crime without the aid of any additional light". I am dubious about this but in the face of such categoric evidence I can't really disagree with what you say, and that is why I did not include in my theory the concept of Eddowes' body being moved.

[Jon Guy]

I had understood we were discussing the incident reported in the Daily Chronicle/Standard/E. News and LWN/Weekly Dispatch whereby a woman was heard (in your words) "knocking on the shutters" of the Colville house and screaming "Murder! Police!". You are now referring to what appears to be a separate incident reported in the East London Advertiser whereby "several persons in the neighbourhood state than an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor anything beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl". From the reports you have helpfully set out in the OP, the only time I can see quoted (by the daughter) for the Colville incident is that it occurred "Early this morning, before it was light" which in theory could be any time before sunrise (which was 5:13am that morning) but, more realistically, before the police were on the scene in Buck's Row at 3:45am. So why you feel you can tell us where Nichols was at the time of the Colville incident is beyond me. .

Was it a separate incident, David ?

I am not referring to one newspaper article but I was trying to make sense of the all the reports (of what was available to me back then) of disturbances in that area that morning.
Yes, the Colville`s stated the time as early this morning but we also have another report stating shortly after midnight . I did mention both these times in my post.
Of course, it must have all happened in Brady Street before Nichols body was found at 3.45 or the police would have noted the disturbance.

The problem is that your opinion is different from that of the doctor who actually saw the body. He saw the cut throat but, despite this, said in his statement on the Friday that he had thought that "it was probable that the murder was committed elsewhere". When it came to the inquest, after he knew exactly how much blood there was, he said, "There was very little blood around the neck".
He never offered an opinion that Nichols was killed where her body was found so there is precisely no medical evidence that she was killed in Buck's Row. .

Ah, so Llewellyn never offered an opinion on where she was killed at the inquest. Was he asked?
My opinion, is based on the medical evidence.

While it is kind of you to fill this deficiency with your own opinion Jon, I fear that we must rely on the actual evidence.

Indeed, as Insp Helson noted in the Birmingham Daily Post 4/9/88:
"He (Helson)was of the opinion the murder was committed where the body was found."

But, if I may return to your original point that Nichols body was dumped in Bucks Row as it was too dark for her to have been killed there (am I correct ?)
What about the equally dark Mitre Square and the organ removal and facial cuts in that instance ? Eddowes was most certainly killed where she was found.
Personally, I think the killer did what he did in poor light and Nichols injuries certainly could have been inflicted in poor light.

[David Orsam]

the press state "shortly after midnight" and "in the early hours of the morning".

I had understood we were discussing the incident reported in the Daily Chronicle/Standard/E. News and LWN/Weekly Dispatch whereby a woman was heard (in your words) "knocking on the shutters" of the Colville house and screaming "Murder! Police!". You are now referring to what appears to be a separate incident reported in the East London Advertiser whereby "several persons in the neighbourhood state than an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor anything beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl". From the reports you have helpfully set out in the OP, the only time I can see quoted (by the daughter) for the Colville incident is that it occurred "Early this morning, before it was light" which in theory could be any time before sunrise (which was 5:13am that morning) but, more realistically, before the police were on the scene in Buck's Row at 3:45am. So why you feel you can tell us where Nichols was at the time of the Colville incident is beyond me.

I stand by the fact that as there was no blood down the front of Nichols throat she had her throat cut whilst lying down.
As the pool of blood was underneath the said gash, then it was there her throat was cut.

The problem is that your opinion is different from that of the doctor who actually saw the body. He saw the cut throat but, despite this, said in his statement on the Friday that he had thought that "it was probable that the murder was committed elsewhere". When it came to the inquest, after he knew exactly how much blood there was, he said, "There was very little blood around the neck". He never offered an opinion that Nichols was killed where her body was found so there is precisely no medical evidence that she was killed in Buck's Row. While it is kind of you to fill this deficiency with your own opinion Jon, I fear that we must rely on the actual evidence.

[Jon Guy]

Hi David

Out of interest, bearing in mind that in the newspaper reports neither Mrs Colville nor her daughter state a time that they heard a woman knocking on their shutters, how are you possibly able to say this with any confidence?

I certainly wouldn`t presume to state with confidence but the press state "shortly after midnight" and "in the early hours of the morning".

Don't forget that you seemed to be suggesting that we could tell that the body was killed where it was found "from the throat cut and the pool of blood under neck, and that there no blood on the front of the neck".

Now that I have demonstrated this to be wrong .

Eh? I must have missed that bit ;-)
But, I stand by the fact that as there was no blood down the front of Nichols throat she had her throat cut whilst lying down.
As the pool of blood was underneath the said gash, then it was there her throat was cut.

you seem to be suggesting that Dr Llewellyn could have drawn some conclusions about where Nichols was killed from the mutilations and/or the heavily blood soaked coat. Perhaps you could tell us how knowledge of the mutilations and the heavily blood soaked coat assisted Dr Llewellyn in establishing the precise location where Nichols was killed.

No, I was suggesting that the mutilations and blood soaked coat were the reasons for the initial observation by Llewellyn of the lack of blood at the scene.

[David Orsam]

A few more thoughts about the police evidence:

In my opinion, it would simply not have been possible for the police to have effectively searched for small drops of blood on the street during hours of darkness or near darkness. Any supposed searches carried out before 6am with or without a lantern would have been futile. The only searches that we could even begin to safely rely on are those carried out in daylight. And in that respect I want to emphasise that the only daylight search, according to the police, was carried out by Inspector Spratling.

We know this because while PC Neil was giving evidence at the inquest (in response to a question from the coroner) that he examined the ground at about 4am, Inspector Spratling leapt up and interrupted the evidence to say that he examined the ground in daylight. Note that he did not say "I examined the ground as did Inspector Helson and others", just that he, Spratling, examined the ground. He later said that this was between 11 and 12.

Yet, we know from his report of 31 Aug, and from his answer to the coroner during his evidence on the Monday, that Spratling was involved in the search for the murder weapon, examining the nearby railway embankments and lines as well as the Great Eastern Railway yard. Did he really have sufficient time to carry out a careful search not only of Buck's Row but also the surrounding streets? For it would be very strange if Spratling only searched Buck's Row and Brady Street. What about Thomas Street and Baker's Row? If he thought Brady Street worth searching then why not these streets too? Surely such a search would have needed to have been carried out by a team of officers, not just Spratling on his own or with Sergeant Godley (who was also have said to have assisted in the search for the weapon).

Now what about Helson? How did he come to see something that looked like blood in Brady Street? Firstly, we need to emphasise that Spratling claimed not to have seen any blood in Brady Street which is inconsistent with his colleague's account.

Let me quote now from the Daily News of 1 September 1888:

"The matter is being investigated by Detective Inspector Abberline, of Scotland yard, and Inspector Helson, J Division. The latter states that he walked carefully over the ground soon after 8 o'clock in the morning, and beyond the discolourations ordinarily found on pavements, there was no sign of stains."

On the face of it, this would appear to support the notion that Helson did carry out a search for bloodstains during the hour between 8am and 9am when he said he was in Buck's Row. However, the Daily News report continues:

"Viewing the spot where the body was found, however, it seems difficult to believe that the woman received her death wounds there".

On my reading of this, it rather seems that walk that Helson did "carefully over the ground" was basically to look for the blood that he assumed must have flowed from the body of Nichols where it was found in Buck's Row. And, of course, he found none. From the ignorance of the reporter, it is clear that he had no idea that the blood had been washed away by James Green and, controversially, I would like to offer the suggestion that Inspector Helson did not know either! While I imagine many posters on this board will disagree with me, the circumstances that morning would have been very confusing and, just knowing how large organisations work, I can easily imagine that the embarrassing news that a member of the public had simply come out and washed away the blood had not been communicated to everyone in the force by 9am that morning. Thain knew and Spratling knew but did they really want the rest of the world to know? It is not clear that Spratling and Helson had even spoken by 9am.

The news of the washing away of the blood certainly did not emerge during Neil's testimony, even though he was asked about his examination of the ground (at which point Spratling, as mentioned, intervened but said nothing about the washing) and it was only after it was reported in the Sunday papers that Green's actions were revealed to the coroner.

My own tentative theory is that, after the story about the Brady Street bloodstains broke in the newspapers, Inspector Helson went back to Brady Street (probably on the Sunday because he was at the inquest on Saturday) and it was then that he noticed something looking like blood in the street. But by that time all the other stains had faded.

Anyway, whether this is right or not, the short point is that by Spratling's own account to the coroner, he was the only person to search the ground for blood during daylight.

[David Orsam]

Hi Jon,

I can`t tell you which woman it was but it wasn`t Polly Nichols as she was either drinking in the pub on Brick Lane or at the lodging house at that time.

Out of interest, bearing in mind that in the newspaper reports neither Mrs Colville nor her daughter state a time that they heard a woman knocking on their shutters, how are you possibly able to say this with any confidence?

Llewellyn himself admits "made me think at the time` .Did he know about the mutilations at that point, or the heavily blood soaked coat ?

Don't forget that you seemed to be suggesting that we could tell that the body was killed where it was found "from the throat cut and the pool of blood under neck, and that there no blood on the front of the neck". Now that I have demonstrated this to be wrong you seem to be suggesting that Dr Llewellyn could have drawn some conclusions about where Nichols was killed from the mutilations and/or the heavily blood soaked coat. Perhaps you could tell us how knowledge of the mutilations and the heavily blood soaked coat assisted Dr Llewellyn in establishing the precise location where Nichols was killed.

[Jon Guy]

Hi David

!
(and you will have to tell me which woman was knocking on the shutters of Colville house). .

I can`t tell you which woman it was but it wasn`t Polly Nichols as she was either drinking in the pub on Brick Lane or at the lodging house at that time.

"There was a very small pool of blood in the pathway which had trickled from the wound in the throat, not more than would fill two wine glasses, or half a pint at the outside. This fact, and the way which the deceased was lying, made me think at the time that it was probable that the murder was committed elsewhere, and the body conveyed to Buck's row."

He could not possibly have had that thought if anything about the throat wound proved that the body was killed where it was found..

Llewellyn himself admits "made me think at the time` .
Did he know about the mutilations at that point, or the heavily blood soaked coat ?

[David Orsam]

My own objection to it would be: could the killer have had any reasonable expectation that the bodies would not be found until daylight?

I think one answer to this is that the killer was not entirely rational - killing and cutting up woman does rather demonstrate that his brain did not work properly after all - and was so fixated over the fantasy idea of members of the public seeing the dead bodies which he had displayed that he didn't think his plan through properly.

Having said that, while reading Monty's book, I was reminded of the report prepared by Dr Bond in November 1888 at the request of the Commissioner, having been provided with all the medical and inquest information about the victims, in which he said:

"...of Berner Street, the discovery appears to have been made immediately after the deed - In Bucks Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed."

Now, if Dr Bond, who I imagine was an intelligent and rational man, believed that the dead bodies of Nichols and Eddowes could have lain in the streets undiscovered by any passing constable for "three or four hours" then surely a rather deranged madman, such as the killer must have been, could have thought so too.

In which case, he tried Plan A, realised it didn't work, moved to Plan B, that didn't work either, went back to Plan A then finally realised it was never going to happen and selected a new Plan C whereby he was absolutely determined to ensure that his "handiwork" would be viewed in daylight. As to that, it occurs to me that it would perfectly explain the locked door at Miller's Court. He locked it so that there would be a long delay before the body could be accessed and moved. Meanwhile it could be viewed through the broken window.

The killer would have taken great pleasure in that his fantasy had finally come to reality. Or did he? Perhaps he realised that it wasn't as enjoyable as he had expected from his fantasies and stopped! Just a theory.

[David Orsam]

Cross and Paul had just entered Buck's Row from better-lighted streets, and their vision hadn't had time to adjust. Could the Ripper have laid in wait for a victim to pass by, getting used to the dark, and thereby gaining that much more of an advantage over her? I doubt that he really needed to see that well to perform the mutilations, but I'm certain that he wanted to see just as much as possible.

Hi Ginger - I'm not saying that's impossible by any means. Rather, I am trying to explain the apparent trail of bloodstains leading from Brady Street to Buck's Row - and, in that context, the idea that the killer wanted to hide the body seems to me to be one solution as to why he would have carried it into a dark spot in Buck's Row.