Brady St bloodstains Aug 31st

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

Can we just pause a little here? Thank you :-)

I think Tom and Chris will agree with me here when I say that very very rarely on here does a thread remain on the one specific subject. Naturally, as in this case, it diversifies over time, whilst the original points lose focus more due to there being only a limited amount of known fact about it, and it extends on into speculation. Which is fine! But things pop up during a thread that CAN sometimes actually be of a greater help for the whole scenario to be understood more "clearly". Tom has focused on something with a potential importance...the possible source of any eventual attack registered on the same night as the Bucks Row murder...The records at the London Hospital- which- as far as I know- have not been searched relating to this "other" event.

Therefore in order to possibly answer any question re the Brady St "happening" or nay- or any other attack in Bucks Row- searching these records may be a Godsend- in many ways!

Mentioning it and asking about it does not detract from the thread- it is very much connected to it- because it may rule in or rule out the goings on in that limited area that night that might or might not have a bearing on ALL unknown answers surrounding the murder of Polly Nichols.

Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones. :-)

Hi Phil - I'd would have preferred not to respond to this, thereby disrupting the thread further, but you have addressed the post to me so I guess I should.

Here's the background to my post #48:

I have repeatedly been saying in this thread that I don't care about the Buck's Row bloodstains, which I think I am entitled to do (because I don't). In post #44, however, Tom implied that, in saying so, it demonstrated that I thought the thread was "all about" me. Then in post #47 he quoted and responded to my post #46 (which was about the Brady Street bloodstains) with a post about the Buck's Row bloodstains.

Now, I am not the moderator of this board and, as far as I am concerned, people can post whatever they like, on or off topic, but in the context of this thread in which the OP has already caused some confusion by including an explanation of the Buck's Row bloodstains as if they were the Brady Street bloodstains and in which I have personally been confused by posts about which bloodstains are being discussed (see posts #13, #14, #15, #17, #18, #19 where the discussion proceeded on a false basis). Indeed, you might even note that Tom said categorically in post #19: "The Brady Street blood is, in my opinion, irrelevant" which in a thread entitled "Brady St bloodstains Aug 31st" even you must admit is a little bit surprising.

So I thought it would be more helpful to the proper flow of the debate if Tom started a new thread on the Buck's Row bloodstains, which he is obviously interested in - so the London Hospital records etc. can be dealt with over there - and the rest of us who are interested in the Brady Street bloodstains could simply discuss those. I wasn't attacking Tom or even criticising him. I just thought it would be more helpful for everyone to proceed that way.

I hope that explains everything for you. I believe I have already wished you a merry Christmas in another thread but I do so again!

[Phil Carter]

Hello David,

Can we just pause a little here? Thank you :-)

I think Tom and Chris will agree with me here when I say that very very rarely on here does a thread remain on the one specific subject. Naturally, as in this case, it diversifies over time, whilst the original points lose focus more due to there being only a limited amount of known fact about it, and it extends on into speculation. Which is fine! But things pop up during a thread that CAN sometimes actually be of a greater help for the whole scenario to be understood more "clearly". Tom has focused on something with a potential importance...the possible source of any eventual attack registered on the same night as the Bucks Row murder...The records at the London Hospital- which- as far as I know- have not been searched relating to this "other" event.

Therefore in order to possibly answer any question re the Brady St "happening" or nay- or any other attack in Bucks Row- searching these records may be a Godsend- in many ways!

Mentioning it and asking about it does not detract from the thread- it is very much connected to it- because it may rule in or rule out the goings on in that limited area that night that might or might not have a bearing on ALL unknown answers surrounding the murder of Polly Nichols.

Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones. :-)


Phil

[Ginger]

Cross and Paul could barely see what was in front of their faces where a dead woman with her throat cut was lying. So how did the killer see what he was doing?????

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.

[Rosella]

Surely it would have been easy for a strong, fit and determined young man (about 30ish) to have caught up with a wounded middleaged woman after the initial attack? He would have finished her off long before she reached Bucks Row.

[David Orsam]

Regardless of whether you're right.

I don't think that is a fair comment.

[Chris]

Because I'm right?

Regardless of whether you're right.

[David Orsam]

I think you'll find it's pointless to argue, Tom.

Because I'm right?

[Chris]

I think you'll find it's pointless to argue, Tom.

[David Orsam]

My point is that if we have two contradictory sources, it's good to look for a third source that might bolster one side or the other. In this case it might be the London Hospital records that would tell us of any knife attacks in the area.

Regarding the Buck's Row bloodstains, the article tells us only that the blood spots move in the direction that Polly Nichols would have taken on her way to the spot. It doesn't state how they know what direction that would be. Were they assuming this was Colwell's woman and thus coming from one direction, or were they assuming Polly got there via Whitechapel Road?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom, you keep constantly coming back to the Buck's Row bloodstains. My post #5 was not about the Buck's Row bloodstains (it only mentioned them because the OP contained a confusing quote which suggested that the Brady Street bloodstains had been explained, when this was actually in respect of the Buck's Row stains). When I say "I don't care" about the Buck's Row bloodstains it's not because I think that this thread all about me, it's because I think that this thread is, or should be, all about the Brady Street bloodstains. The clue is in the thread title. So your post is, with all due respect, off topic. If you are so interested in the Buck's Row bloodstains why not start a thread about them?

[Tom_Wescott]

That's essentially what my post #5 in this thread was all about.

My point is that if we have two contradictory sources, it's good to look for a third source that might bolster one side or the other. In this case it might be the London Hospital records that would tell us of any knife attacks in the area.

Regarding the Buck's Row bloodstains, the article tells us only that the blood spots move in the direction that Polly Nichols would have taken on her way to the spot. It doesn't state how they know what direction that would be. Were they assuming this was Colwell's woman and thus coming from one direction, or were they assuming Polly got there via Whitechapel Road?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

particularly when there's inquest testimony from a cop saying he's only aware of a single stain in Brady Street that may not have been blood.

That's essentially what my post #5 in this thread was all about.

[David Orsam]

It's not all about you, David.

I know that, but Chris's post, to which I was responding, which said "No doubt you know best" was about me!

[Tom_Wescott]

Well Tom tells me that such records do survive - although god only knows whether anyone has looked at them with this in mind - but here's the thing, I don't care!

It's not all about you, David. Some of us do want to know the truth. The press can say a woman was attacked, but that doesn't make it true. They may have been referring to the Colwell episode in which it's only assumed a woman was being attacked.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I forgot to respond to this sentence. Can I ask why you say this? What I see are some unusually detailed press reports. Not only that but two different reports in different newspapers (i.e. first in the Daily Chronicle/Evening Standard on the Saturday and then more detailed reporting of the stains in the Sunday morning papers: LWN/Weekly Dispatch). I would have thought it certain that reporters would have been crawling all over Buck's Row and Brady Street on the Friday/Saturday and I have always assumed that this is how they discovered Robert Paul (but let's not argue about that). For this reason, it is surely at least possible that the reporters saw the stains with their own eyes. But if not, we are not in a court of law and what you refer to as "hearsay" would simply be them reporting something they had been told.

I mentioned I'd have to look at it closer, but my initial impression was they were reporting what they'd been told. For instance, when a reporter gained access to the mortuary and described what he himself saw, I would lend that account more weight than when a paper was reporting something without mentioning the source, particularly when there's inquest testimony from a cop saying he's only aware of a single stain in Brady Street that may not have been blood.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

No doubt you know best.

Well Tom tells me that such records do survive - although god only knows whether anyone has looked at them with this in mind - but here's the thing, I don't care!